Re: Multiple PTR records
Kevin Darcy <kcd@daimlerchrysler.com> Fri, 08 June 2001 00:52 UTC
Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA16770 for <dnsop-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 20:52:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.0.Beta5/8.12.0.Beta5) id f580QDjo014284 for dnsop-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 02:26:13 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from fxodpr10.is.chrysler.com (fxodpr10.extra.daimlerchrysler.com [204.189.94.74]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.0.Beta5/8.12.0.Beta5) with ESMTP id f580QCuA014279 for <dnsop@cafax.se>; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 02:26:12 +0200 (MEST)
Received: (from uucp@localhost) by fxodpr10.is.chrysler.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id UAA08862; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 20:22:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from nodnsquery(129.9.202.19) by fwodpr10.is.chrysler.com via smap (V5.5) id xma008844; Thu, 7 Jun 01 20:21:59 -0400
Received: from clkcdts1.is.chrysler.com (clkcdts1.is.chrysler.com [129.9.209.47]) by odmrspr1-pf0.oddc.chrysler.com (8.11.2/8.11.2/daimlerchrysler-relay-1.1-kcd) with ESMTP id f580PxT20212; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 20:25:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from daimlerchrysler.com (clkcdts1.is.chrysler.com [129.9.209.47]) by clkcdts1.is.chrysler.com (8.11.2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id f580OcA22742; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 20:24:38 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3B201B46.97FDF5A4@daimlerchrysler.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 20:24:38 -0400
From: Kevin Darcy <kcd@daimlerchrysler.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.8 sun4u)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dnsop@cafax.se, comp-protocols-dns-bind@moderators.isc.org
Subject: Re: Multiple PTR records
References: <200106072259.f57MxFv91665@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mark.Andrews@nominum.com wrote: > > > > To clarify: there is nothing in the DNS protocol to stop you from creating mu > > ltiple > > PTR records with the same name, however no app is known to actually look beyo > > nd the > > first PTR in a response, and because of this fact BIND suppresses RR sorting > > for > > PTR records. So essentially all PTRs beyond the first one are "invisible" and > > a > > waste of packet space (if the response overflows the 512-byte limit, then it > > may > > also waste TCP retransmissions too). > > > > > > - Kevin > > Some site even go so far adding PTR records that they exceed > the protocols ability to send them in a response. I wonder > about sites that do this and how much else they don't know > about. > > You could even use multiple PTR records as a filtering > critera when selecting web hosting providers. If they list > multiple PTR records then they most probable don't know > what they are doing and you should shy away from them. > > It sound like you are trying to learn what to do which is > good. Good luck and keep up the learning. I wonder if this would be good BCP material (?). RFC 2181 (not a BCP of course but Standards Track) almost seems to *encourage* multiple PTRs by "clarifying" that it is supported in the protocol. Now that the cat is out of the bag, perhaps there should be a BCP stating that, while multiple PTRs are technically possible, they are generally undesirable and when taken to extremes can in fact cause problems. I would not volunteer to write such a document, of course, given my even-more-radical view that reverse DNS should probably go away or its use be severely limited (and I don't think keeping reverse DNS around solely as a sort of "ISP intelligence test" is really a strong argument, even when couched in terms of spam-prevention). - Kevin
- Re: Multiple PTR records Kevin Darcy
- Re: Multiple PTR records Shane Kerr
- Re: Multiple PTR records Robert Elz
- Re: Multiple PTR records Shane Kerr