at least two problems with this approach:
- delegation does not imply announcement or reachability
DNS registration should -NOT- do the same, but it does.
Only if DNS is mis-configured.
One more incentive for people to keep their DNS working?
- People thus far have not been willing to deploy the segmentation
needed to split DNS delegations along CIDR bounds. Until then
we are "stuck" with classful alignments in DNS.
It is not critical, because the IN-ADDR zones work like that
anyway. Although i agree that fixing DNS in that respect
would be helpful.
- This was considered and abandoned as another attempt to overload
Oh, c'mon. "Purity of idea" crap again. TXT RRs were introduced
specifically for that purpose.
The flaw in this approach is that the top level delegation point
can always override any downstream delegation point. (can you say
restraint of trade? Sure you can..)
Depends on point of view. I would say it IS desireable.
Then, as any lawyer would say you if you disallow Internet service
providers asking for renumbering you'll have to shut down telephones
first. There is a very strong case that renumbering in communication
nbetworks is an accepted practice. (Can you say ISDN or X.25/X.121 or
It will be stronger when we get SIG RR's and dynamic update.
Perhaps we can revive it?