Comment 13 for bug 1382190

On 22 October 2014 22:03, Graham Binns <email address hidden> wrote:
> This works perfectly:

Awesome, that's great. Sort of brain-dump follows:

How does this work for networks that don't line up with IPv4 octets? For
example, for a dynamic range that covers 192.168.0.0/23, would we need
to write the following?

  $GENERATE 1-254 $.0.168.192.in-addr.arpa. IN PTR no-name-yet-$.maas.
  $GENERATE 1-254 $.1.168.192.in-addr.arpa. IN PTR no-name-yet-$.maas.

A /16 would need 256 lines.

Is this expanded macro-like within BIND, or is it compiled into a rule?
It may make a difference to performance.

I assume we'll do this only for IPv4? If it's compiled to a rule, we
/could/ do it for IPv6 too, but that may be a slope down which we don't
want to slip. Ultimately we want to steer people towards reserving IP
addresses via MAAS's API.

Is this enough to satisfy RabbitMQ? Some services like to make sure that
they can round-trip through DNS, i.e. that the PTR record resolves to a
name that then resolves back to the starting address.

We could choose the prefix to encourage people to reserve addresses. For
example, "dynamic-$", "anon-$", "temporary-$", or "do-not-use-$", in
order of severity. Unfortunately this is bikeshed territory, so I'm
going to put myself out of the running by voting for
"do-not-rely-on-this-you-get-to-keep-the-pieces-and-give-me-one-million-dollars-$".