[dns-wg] use of "rev-srv" attribute in "inetnum" (and "inet6num") objects

--On lördag, lördag 31 mar 2007 22.32.46 +0200 Peter Koch <pk at DENIC.DE>
wrote:

> So, it turns out "rev-srv" has some disadvantages:
> 
> (D1) the "rev-srv" attribute is redundant, because only "domain" objects
>      cause delegations to be present in reverse zone maintained by the NCC
> (D2) "rev-srv" lacks consistency checks with both the reality and any
>      potential "domain" object; several attributes just contain incorrect
>      information
> (D3) the "rev-srv" attribute does not really help finding the zone for
>      address ranges smaller than /24 (where delegations are following RFC
> 2317)

The worst part here probably is ambiguity. 
 
> On the other hand, it might still have advantages:
> 
> (A1) where there is a delegation from an NCC maintained zone to an LIR
> for,      say, a /16 address range, the "rev-srv" attribute for enclosed
> /24s      may provide useful additional information

MAY, yes, but not "will". DNS is probably better maintained (not that it is
good, but probably better.)

> (A2) even if the leaf zone name cannot be guessed for RFC 2317
> delegations,      the "rev-srv" attribute might help in locating the zone
> containing the      CNAME RRs

dig +trace is your friend. 

> (A3) "rev-srv" attributes could provide additional information in legacy
>      class B space

This is A1 again. 

I think the objects can be disregarded, if not outright discarded. 
-- 
Måns Nilsson                     Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204   cell                       KTHNOC
+46 8 790 6518  office                  MN1334-RIPE

INSIDE, I have the same personality disorder as LUCY RICARDO!!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/dns-wg/attachments/20070401/1696e518/attachment.sig>