Good Morning Valdis > On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:37:44 BST, Sean Jones > <sean.jones@micromedical.co.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