North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1?
>at least two problems with this approach: >- delegation does not imply announcement or reachability > DNS registration should -NOT- do the same, but it does. Only if DNS is mis-configured. One more incentive for people to keep their DNS working? >- People thus far have not been willing to deploy the segmentation > needed to split DNS delegations along CIDR bounds. Until then > we are "stuck" with classful alignments in DNS. It is not critical, because the IN-ADDR zones work like that anyway. Although i agree that fixing DNS in that respect would be helpful. >- This was considered and abandoned as another attempt to overload > the DNS. Oh, c'mon. "Purity of idea" crap again. TXT RRs were introduced specifically for that purpose. >The flaw in this approach is that the top level delegation point >can always override any downstream delegation point. (can you say >restraint of trade? Sure you can..) Depends on point of view. I would say it IS desireable. Then, as any lawyer would say you if you disallow Internet service providers asking for renumbering you'll have to shut down telephones first. There is a very strong case that renumbering in communication nbetworks is an accepted practice. (Can you say ISDN or X.25/X.121 or Frame Relay)? >It will be stronger when we get SIG RR's and dynamic update. >Perhaps we can revive it? Yeah, sure. --vadim