On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 13:27, william(at)elan.net wrote:
potentially they could switch
to using different CLASS (i.e. like HESIOD is locally used in MIT)
Actually, MIT switched to class IN for Hesiod data years ago because
multiple-class support didn't work as well as hoped. With the data in
class IN hesiod became a simple overlay over the existing DNS with no
mods required to the DNS infrastructure code (resolvers or servers).
Note that, in contrast with .gprs, and regardless of which class it
used,
hesiod data at MIT was always stored in a subzone of mit.edu rather than
in
an unregistered & uncoordinated TLD.
- Bill
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf