On 3/30/2012 10:19 AM, Ray Bellis wrote: > With the current scheme it's possible to delegate longer prefixes, and this > is a necessary feature. > > The stuff Dan was saying about two alternate representations concerns me, > though. As written, by default: > > 192.168.64/18 is 1.0.m.168.192 > > but > > 192.168.64/24 is 64.168.192 > > which is not a sub-domain of the enclosing /18 representation. > > This way lies dragons, I think...
+1. thus my earlier observation: RFC 1101 supports classless networks even though it didn't mean to. RFC 2317 is entirely compatible with RFC 1101 (there's only one delegation tree covering both.) if there's a need for a new netblock-specific DNS schema like the one in the gersch draft, then i recommend learning from what we did in RPZ, where the prefix size is _always_ given as are all octets of the mantissa except the "::" longest-zero string which is given as ".zz.". more information about RPZ can be had from: https://deepthought.isc.org/article/AA-00525/0/Building-DNS-Firewalls-with-Response-Policy-Zones-RPZ.html and specifically from: https://deepthought.isc.org/article/AA-00512/0 which has the actual spec, in .txt and .pdf format. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
