On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 9:56 AM, David Conrad <drc(_at_)virtualized(_dot_)org>
wrote:
John,
Either that or figure out how to make it easy enough to deploy new
RRTYPEs that people are willing to do so.
The type number is 16 bits, after all. We're not in any danger of
running out.
We have been told on numerous occasions that one of the primary reasons
for continued use of TXT is because middleboxes, etc., do not allow new RR
types (something deprecation of the SPF RR would seem to only encourage).
The number of bits in the type field would not seem to be particularly
relevant to this.
Regards,
-drc
Which is a problem that I think can only be solved if there is a general
solution of the policy distribution problem and an expectation that at
least new middle boxen will support it.
I have been pushing for some sort of 'Internet 2.0' branding for equipment
that meets a comprehensive set of nextgen needs, i.e. IPv6, port
forwarding, DNSSEC, border policy enforcement for that very reason.
But it has to be a two way street. The reason DNS Choices fell flat is that
it just told people what not to do to solve their problems, it did not
provide a proposal that actually solved their problems.
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/