Good Morning Valdis
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:37:44 BST, Sean Jones
<sean(_dot_)jones(_at_)micromedical(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> said:
Why is a PTR (or DNS) record with MS TCP different from the
standard TCP/IP record?
(Perhaps it is me in my ignorance, or lack of understanding :o) )
It's not different. Or in any case, it's not sufficiently
different to cause an interoperation problem in this case.
The reference to RFC2821, section 10.2 was regarding the fact
that having multiple PTR records for one address *IS* legal, despite
widespread belief to the contrary. The original point was that you'll need a
router ACL to block a lot more than one address, and keep the list of
addresses up to date.
And anyhow, using a router block is a bad idea in this case.
There's two cases - either you still have machines using that vendor's
software, and you WANT them to reach the servers so they can update, or you
don't have the software installed, in which case you don't really care if
the server is reachable..
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Senior Engineer
Virginia Tech
I have been cogitating on this for a little while. (Especially as I didn't want
to sound thick when replying)
Why would MS (or anyone for that matter) want multiple pointer records when one
will suffice. My thoughts revolved around clustered servers, .net & etc In
short the Microsoft-verse.
In reality it doesn't matter two hoots what MS do, they will still have to
inter-operate with the rest of the Internet per se, unless you believe the
scare mongering that with .Net MS want to make a corporate Internet which they
control.
(If they did ever go that way, I'd be one of the first to join "Treehouse")
Thinking along a bit more, setting the routers shouldn't be a big issue, after
all Cisco have been producing routers IPv6 capable for a fair while now, so
surely they could incorporate multiple PTR records within the routers
capability?
Regards
Sean Jones
A Boring old IT Manager for a SME