Jim Lyon wrote:
As previously discussed at length, if you're in a corporate environment
behind a firewall created using Microsoft Internet Security and
Acceleration Server, you are completely incapable of querying for a new
record type
I've been catching up with the archives and I don't comprehend this
point. Why not support the use of TXT as a fallback while the new record
isn't widely supported?
I have a small objection to TXT records, namely that it would be more
compact to specify a CIDR in a binary representation in the new record
than in TXT (the XML overhead might also be a consideration). Taking the
157.56.0.0/14 range as an example, we'll need between 7 to 11 octets,
instead of 5 octets for the equivalent binary representation.
The extra traffic for people who don't support the new record would
also encourage them to upgrade their DNS servers when a new version is
available.
--
Luis Bruno UTM: 29T 629481E 4511776N 576m