[dns-wg] TLD delegation trade-offs

On Jun 7, 2005, at 09:58, Peter Koch wrote:
> Name servers are objects in the DNS which are pointed at due
> to their special function. Just using their names as "aliases" to some
> address misses the point.

Please explain what point is being missed Peter. The ability to have 
these "aliases"  is valuable. For example, when I renamed the *host* 
that was the master server for rfc1035.com I didn't have to change the 
delegation. This pointed at ns0.rfc1035.com which was and is an A 
record for the zone's master server. Name service for the zone remained 
at the same IP address but the name of the box providing that service 
changed.

>> This confuses me too Ed. AFAICT there is no one name per address
>> policy. Even if this was the case for TLD delegations, we'd still only
>> be talking about wasting around 4000 IPv4 addresses, assuming each TLD
>
> So, why would all this new wisdom only apply to TLDs?

Because that was the initial context of the discussion! There appeared 
to be a policy at IANA of one hostname per IP address in the root zone. 
It's clearly unworkable to insist on there being exactly one hostname 
for an IP address. There should of course be one PTR record per IP 
address, but that's an entirely different discussion.