Wouter Wijngaards wrote:

> Issue [4.8]:
> Is DNAME the Way to go for CIDR Blocks in in-addr.arpa? Should this
> be addressed by this document?


I'd like to suggest we close this issue, since this topic would, if at all,
belong in an addendum to or update of RFC 2317/BCP 20.
That said, a property of DNAME is that all descendants of its owner are
treated equally, something that 'Classless delegation' was explicitly designed
to avoid. DNAMEs _could_ be used for prefixes shorter than /24 instead of
'mass delegations': for a /17, instead of 128 delegations install 128
DNAME RRs (and maybe one delegation). Still, I don't think that would be
in scope for 2672bis.

-Peter

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: