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.
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.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf