1 / 5

Frederico A C Neves <fneves@lacnic>

Frederico A C Neves <fneves@lacnic.net>. Used for inverse resolution Sample reverse resolution 192.168.5.87 -> www.example.com 87.5.168.192.in-addr.arpa. IN PTR www.example.com. Sample direct resolution www.example.com -> 192.168.5.87 www.example.com. IN A 192.168.5.87

didina
Download Presentation

Frederico A C Neves <fneves@lacnic>

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Frederico A C Neves <fneves@lacnic.net>

  2. Used for inverse resolution Sample reverse resolution 192.168.5.87 -> www.example.com 87.5.168.192.in-addr.arpa. IN PTR www.example.com. Sample direct resolution www.example.com -> 192.168.5.87 www.example.com. IN A 192.168.5.87 Delegation schema of sub-zones limited by the 8 bits boundary format of representation in-addr.arpa zone

  3. /16 or shorter Multiples delegations at the 16th bit boundary Sample 200.2/15 2 zones 2.200.in-addr.arpa and 3.200.in-addr.arpa /17 to /24 Multiples delegations at the 24th bit boundary Sample 200.35.0/20 16 zones from 0.35.200.in-addr.arpa to 15.35.200.in-addr.arpa /25 or longer Recommended the use of BCP20 Delegation base on allocated prefix size

  4. ? Discussion / Consensus Reach

  5. Motivated by the side effects caused by some resolver implementations that impose higher load at upper levels of the delegation (notably /8 delegated servers for .in-addr.arpa). Already monitoring reverse lame delegations. Proposal should be addressed by a new working group at the mailing list. Volunteers ? Possible questions for the mailing list What is the criteria to classify a multi zone delegation as lame ? What should be the procedure when classified ? Lame delegation control

More Related