also sprach Chris Wagner <wagnerc@plebeian.com> [2002.01.11.0541 +0100]:
> This is sort of the function of canonical names. "Other" names for the IP
> besides the absolute name (or Loopback name in our parlance). But CNAME's
> are deprecated for other reasons. I personally never had any problems using
> them.
me neither. deprecated? i know that most mailers will complain if the MX
is a CNAME, so i always have mail.madduck.net have it's own A record,
even though the actual hostname also maps to that A record...
> >All the people who say "but I don't control the reverse for my IP(s)"
> >don't understand the issue ... it's up to the registered contact for
> >the block to make sure reverse resolution works. Of course that means
> >resolving to A records that the contact also controls. This is all
> >spelled out in the RFCs and best practice documents.
>
> It has been possible for some time now to allocate really really small IP
> blocks. I had a /27 allocated to me in ARIN once. I controlled my own
> reverse lookups that way. I don't know how small they will go though.
/29, although i've seen /30's. problem is that with that much of a
subnet, you are wasting a lot of IPs. the efficiency in terms of IP
usage for /30 is 50%!!!
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; net@madduck
"a rock pile ceases to be a rock pile
the moment a single man contemplates it,
bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
-- antoine de saint-exupery
Attachment:
pgpOyDB0IcWDR.pgp
Description: PGP signature