Moin! On 05.03.2013, at 02:24, Daniel Massey <[email protected]> wrote: > We have an approach for naming IP prefixes and have been using the naming > scheme for about a year now. The scheme is documented at: > > draft-gersch-dnsop-revdns-cidr-04.txt One question, as I may have missed earlier discussion on this. Why are you adding an additional label ("m") even on an octet boundary for IPv4/nibble boundary for IPv6? This seems to add something (CNAME) not needed for that common case.
So long -Ralf --- Ralf Weber Senior Infrastructure Architect Nominum Inc. 2000 Seaport Blvd. Suite 400 Redwood City, California 94063 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
