This is a discussion on Re: DNAME [4.8]: DNAME and CIDR Blocks in in-addr.arpa - DNS ; > 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 ...
> 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 designe
> 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.
I agree with Peter this is RFC 2317bis fodder.
RFC 2317bis itself is long overdue and if it isn't on the
dnsops adgenda it should be.
ISC Training! October 16-20, 2006, in the San Francisco Bay Area,
covering topics from DNS to DHCP. Email firstname.lastname@example.org.
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@isc.org
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.