On May 14, 2015, at 3:55 PM, <sth...@nethelp.no> <sth...@nethelp.no> wrote: > what do you do > when the customer goes off net, or acquires a new dynamic address? > Does the protocol take care to *remove* the old delegation then?
Yes. As to the error rate, actually if this is designed and implemented properly the error rate could be zero. But even if it is not zero, best is the enemy of good enough. If we only delegate to those devices that specifically negotiate delegations, and the vast majority of devices do not negotiate delegations, this won't be a problem. If you don't routinely change your customer's numbering, the opportunities for that error to occur are reduced. If this becomes something that people actually use and benefit from, then there will be an incentive to get it right, and vendors who do not get it right will lose business. And, as I said in response to Joel, the homenet working group is actually describing a mechanism for doing this that avoids the dangling delegation problem by using a hidden primary/public secondary arrangement, so that if the delegation temporarily fails during renumbering, it's not visible to hosts on the internet anyway, because queries were never going to the CPE device. Personally I think this is actually the best solution, whether it's an ISP-hosted secondary or something more like what dyndns.net used to do. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
