Re: Many A-records

In article <c52vmm$1c1u$1@sf1.isc.org>, "fih" <frhak@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Good point!
>
> I have been spending hours about this discussion the latest days. More and
> more I'm convinced that how i work and always have worket is fine. But i
> have to admit that there is no rules against having more than one A-record
> which i always have believed.
>
> My current thoughts leads to questions like. Ok if they use A-records
> instead of Cnames i wonder what they do about the PTR records. I heave read
> that it's OK to have multiple PTR records. But for applications that uses
> A-records and PTR-records i guess it will not work. Examples i can think of
> is Sendmail, NFS and Backup solutions. (I could be wrong here, if a resolver
> recieves a list of PTR records it might be so that it will check for the
> proper one, i don't know)

As long as every PTR record has a matching A record, it's OK. You don't
have to have a PTR record for every A record. So the following is a
good setup:

<name1> A 1.2.3.4
<name2> A 1.2.3.4
<name3> A 1.2.3.4
4.3.2.1.in-addr.arpa. PTR <name1>

--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***