> On 11 Sep 2018, at 7:39 am, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > > In article <20180910165922.ga31...@isc.org> you write: >> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 09:48:05AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote: >>> Andrew Sullivan wrote: >>>> I agree with Paul Vixie that classes were never defined well enough to >>>> be made to work properly, at least at Internet scale. > > Agreed. Since it's a different name space, there wouldn't be any > point since you can get the same effect without any software changes > by starting from a different root. > >> This is not in any way an *urgent* consideration, but I do sometimes >> wonder what we (or, y'know, our grandchildren) are going to do if we >> ever run short of type codes. > > Since the type code is a 16-bit field, if we allocate a new type every > week, it'll take over a thousand years to run out. I think this is one we > can safely ignore.
If we end up with a type per protocol because people want wildcards to work we will burn through types much faster. We don’t know exactly what the future will bring. I do know that burning then 65000 times as fast as we *need* to is not a good idea. I do know that saying that classes can’t work is self defeating and will take a lot, lot, lot more of work to undo than just continuing to support multiple classes. > R's, > John > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
