On 26-Nov-2005, at 11:30, Pekka Savola wrote:==> this document describes the multihoming approaches at quite bit of length, and I'm not sure if such are appropriate for a standards track document.
Perhaps an informative reference to RFC 4116 could save some space and avoid a certain amount of wheel-reinvention.
Agreed.
See [RFC2317] for a much more detailed discussion of DNS delegation with classless addressing.
==> "much more detailed discussion" indeed -- this doc doesn't really address the beef of the classless DNS delegation, i.e., assignments on boundaries other than 8 bits. I'd cut down the amount of DNS text that currently exists or put in an example of about /26, /27, or /30 reverse dns classless delegation.
Personally, if the draft is to receive additional edits anyway, I think all the DNS info should be stripped and replaced with a sentence or two that note the additional complexity that CIDR introduces to IN-ADDR.ARPA delegation, along with a normative reference to 2317.
Attempting to embed a stripped down version of 2317 into this document doesn't seem productive.
-- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _________________________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow.html web archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/