Slightly OT: BIND problem

Scott Mitchell scott.mitchell at mail.com
Wed Nov 7 23:09:11 GMT 2001


On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 05:21:25PM +0000, Paul Civati wrote:
> "Scott Mitchell" <scott at uk.freebsd.org> wrote:
> > Very likely, although I don't know too much about how 2k Server
> > does its thing.  This box hands out DHCP addresses to the various
> > Windows workstations and dynamically updates the DNS to match, so
> > there's clearly some magic going on.  Hence the desire to delegate
> > all these reverse lookups to the 2k machine.
> 
> For completeness I would have thought the 2k box might also maintain
> the reverse, but then maybe not.

The 2k server thinks that it's maintaining the reverse map for the various
10.1.x/24 blocks it's responsible for.  Indeed, if you ask it about those
it gives the right answers.  Trouble is that the OpenBSD boxes don't want
to ask it -- they just say "we don't know" :-(

> Ahh, well if it's primary for 10.1/16 then that may be a problem,
> if it's primary for smaller 10.1.x/24 blocks then that should be
> okay.

named.conf makes it primary for 10.1/16.  I *thought* that should allow me
to delegate the various 10.1.x/24 ranges to another server -- presumably
this is what our ISP has done with the "real" class C block that we're
happily serving the reverse lookups for.

I know, I should just go buy the book and learn how to do this properly :-)

Cheers,

	Scott

-- 
===========================================================================
Scott Mitchell          | PGP Key ID | "Eagles may soar, but weasels
Cambridge, England      | 0x54B171B9 |  don't get sucked into jet engines"
scott.mitchell at mail.com | 0xAA775B8B |      -- Anon




More information about the Ukfreebsd mailing list