Re: [LUG] BIND and non 255.255.255.0 netmasks.

[Simon Waters <Simon at wretched.demon.co.uk>]

Alex Charrett wrote:
> 
> > It claims the technique it suggests is an IETF draft
> > ietf-cidr-classless-inaddr-01
> 
> What version of the book do you have? 

Edition 2

> In this one (v3) I cannot see any
> mention of that document.  However it does refer to RFC 2317, which I would
> have thought is a similar thing.
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2317.txt

Presumably it progressed.

> 
> > If you can avoid delegating the DNS management below the class C level
> > life is a lot simpler <hint hint>. I mean scalability in delegation is
> > one thing, but 250 hosts or less - just make it static and manage it
> > centrally. Some problems are best solved nontechnically.
> 
> I am somewhat confused by these documents atm, possibly because my
> understanding of subnet masks is not what it should be.

I think understanding subnets is pretty vital.

subnets are simple if you forget about classes A,B and C.

An IP address is a network part and a host part. The subnet merely
determined where the division takes place.

Remember there is NO reason why DNS structure has to follow network
structure!

Delegating domains in DNS is entirely intended to allow remote admins of
the DNS to keep their DNS synchronised with their network. If all the
DNS is administered centrally you can forget about subnetting the DNS,
the remote net admins can send you updates as e-mail.

A domain is not a network, a network is not a domain (Even in
in-addr.arpa - although it tends to be the case here more often than the
other way around.)


-- 
Business http://www.eighth-layer.com/
Personal http://www.wretched.demon.co.uk/
--
lug-list - The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
Mail majordomo at lists.termisoc.org with "unsubscribe lug-list" in the
message body to unsubscribe.