On 5 Mar 2013, at 01:24, Daniel Massey <mas...@cs.colostate.edu> wrote:
> Hi, > > 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 > > Over the past several months, we have incorporated feedback from users and > also incorporated some past feedback from the working group. We ask the > community to take a look at the above draft and consider adopting the draft > as a working group item. I still find one aspect of this draft very troubling. Having just written a script to test out the algorithm, I find that it still has the property that the generated prefix for "/M" is not a sub-prefix of that for "/N" if "M" is not within the same octet boundary as "N". For example: m.82.129.in-addr.arpa (for 129.82.0.0/16) is not a subdomain of 1.0.0.1.0.1.0.m.129.in-addr.arpa (for 129.82.0.0/15). What I can't tell from the draft is whether this fails Design Requirement 3: "Coverage Authority: With the exception of data that has been sub- delegated to a child zone, the reverse DNS zone must be authoritative for all sub-prefixes below the covering prefix. Any query for a sub-prefix must be answered with a data record or NXDOMAIN specifying this zone as the authority." I posted the exact same concerns to DNSOP last May and June but there were not addressed. kind regards, Ray _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
