> > We have asked the NIC accept change notices from us, so tha t > registration of reverse servers in the database would be > enough to get them into the DNS. Is this desirable? > NO!! I do not agree, I think it would be very useful to the European networking community to interact with RIPE-NCC only instead of having to interact with both RIPE-NCC and the US NIC Interaction is fine. But RIPE stepping into someone else's authority is quite something different!
I don't see any problem with that as long as we (european networking people) agree to send update to the RIPE-NCC instead of sending them to the NIC. This is exactly what we already do when registering new networks. Is there anybody who liked more the previous situation (having to wait many days, frequent errors in the database, etc) than the present one? I don't see any difference between registering a new network and registrering inverse nameservers for a network. I only need a place where to send my updates that can guarantee that they are put in the proper servers...
I don't see the point in what Piet says: ..... If you "have only, say, 2 internal and the 2 external servers listed for foo.XX in the XX zone file" how could the RIPE-NCC script discover the other 8 internal servers? Looking in glass ball? Reread the original message: it explicitly contained a sentence: Then a list of all reverse servers found in the DNS: which implies that DNS is queried to find all (in this case reverse) nameservers. How that's done is irrelevant.
If you do not list server in the authoritative zone file they ARE NOT FOUND in the DNS. In fact it makes no sense to list Internet unreachable servers in a zone file which is exported to the world by an Internet connected server ---------- ---------- Antonio_Blasco Bonito E-Mail: bonito@nis.garr.it GARR - Network Information Service c=it;a=garr;p=garr;o=nis;s=bonito c/o CNUCE - Istituto del CNR Tel: +39 (50) 593246 Via S. Maria, 36 Telex: 500371 CNUCE I 56126 PISA Italy Fax: +39 (50) 904052 ---------- ----------