PIRARD%vm1.ulg.ac.be@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Andr'e PIRARD) (10/09/90)
Our name server, on a VM system, receives reverse mapping queries.
One reason found is mailing on Unix systems, that also produces other
strange requests (sendmail.mx on SunOS, see below).
I am wondering how many such requests will come from the Internet when
we will be connected.
So, my question is: how useful is it to ask our administrators
to implement their in-addr.arpa domains?
Is it usually done?
Andr'e PIRARD SEGI, Univ. de Li`ege
B26 - Sart Tilman B-4000 Li`ege 1 (Belgium)
pirard@vm1.ulg.ac.be or PIRARD@BLIULG11 on EARN/BITNET
Received: from BLIULG11 by BLIULG11 (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 5355; Tue, 09
Oct 90 15:49:11 +0100
Received: from montefiore.ulg.ac.be by vm1.ulg.ac.be (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX)
with TCP; Tue, 09 Oct 90 15:49:09 +01
Received: from rib1 ([139.165.8.17]) by montefiore.ulg.ac.be (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA08359; Tue, 9 Oct 90 15:49:38 +0100
Received: by rib1 (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA06469; Tue, 9 Oct 90 15:49:26 +0100
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 90 15:49:26 +0100
From: pirard@montefiore.ulg.ac.be (PIRARD ANDRE tel 4932 SEGI)
Message-Id: <9010091449.AA06469@rib1>
To: pirard@vm1.ulg.ac.be
datagram from 139.165.16.1 port 2013, fd 8, len 43
req: nlookup(17.8.165.139.in-addr.arpa) id 2 type=12
req: missed '17.8.165.139.in-addr.arpa' as '' (cname=0)
forw: forw -> 139.165.2.1 8 (53) nsid=80 id=2 3225ms retry 6 sec
datagram from 139.165.2.1 port 53, fd 8, len 43
send_msg -> 139.165.16.1 (UDP 11 2013) id=2
datagram from 139.165.16.1 port 2014, fd 8, len 42
req: nlookup(vm1.montefiore.ulg.ac.be) id 3 type=1
req: found 'vm1.montefiore.ulg.ac.be' as 'vm1.montefiore.ulg.ac.be' (cname=0)
req: answer -> 139.165.16.1 11 (2014) id=3 Local
datagram from 139.165.16.1 port 2015, fd 8, len 31
req: nlookup(vm1.ulg.ac.be) id 4 type=1
req: found 'vm1.ulg.ac.be' as 'vm1.ulg.ac.be' (cname=0)
req: answer -> 139.165.16.1 11 (2015) id=4 Local
datagram from 139.165.16.1 port 2016, fd 8, len 31
req: nlookup(vm1.ulg.ac.be) id 5 type=15
req: found 'vm1.ulg.ac.be' as 'vm1.ulg.ac.be' (cname=0)
req: answer -> 139.165.16.1 11 (2016) id=5 Localbob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (10/10/90)
In article <9010091715.AA05649@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> PIRARD%vm1.ulg.ac.be@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Andr'e PIRARD) writes:
...how useful is it to ask our administrators to implement their
in-addr.arpa domains? Is it usually done?
See RFC1123 ("Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application and
Support"), section 6.1.1:
Every host MUST implement a resolver for the Domain Name
System (DNS), and it MUST implement a mechanism using this
DNS resolver to convert host names to IP addresses and
vice-versa [DNS:1, DNS:2].
Yes, it's very useful. It's usually done. Addresses for which
reverse mapping is not maintained are not in conformance to the
applicable standards, and should receive a firm finger-wagging. If
your local administrators hesitate, bash them over the head with a
printed copy of RFC1123, all 98 pages.
Hmmm, I just noticed upon closer reading that this requirement only
applies to the resolver that must be available on each host. It
doesn't say that an authoritative reverse mapping must be available
(from some name server somewhere) for every address. So bash them
gently, if you must :-)tengi@princeton.edu (Christopher Tengi) (10/18/90)
If you are going to get them to implement in-addr.arpa on your local nameserver, don't forget to have them get authority delegeted to them from the NIC. ie Princeton has authority for Princeton.EDU and 112.128.in-addr.arpa. /Chris -- ==========----------==========---------+---------==========----------========== UUCP: ...princeton!tengi VOICEnet: 609-258-6799 INTERNET: tengi@princeton.edu FAX: 609-258-3943 BITNET: TENGI@PUCC