[dns-wg] sub-/24 "delegation" [2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)]

• Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] sub-/24 "delegation" [2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)]
• Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] sub-/24 "delegation" [2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)]

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Doug Barton dougb at dougbarton.us
Thu Mar 27 17:39:13 CET 2014

On 03/27/2014 02:58 AM, Janos Zsako wrote:
> Dear all,
>
>> people on this list might be interested in one aspect of the
>> proposed policy <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-01>,
>> <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2014-March/008638.html>,
>>
>> when it comes to (sub-)allocations smaller than /24.
>> Note that BCP10/RFC 2317 is not necessarily the or the only solution
>> to the problem.
>
> _Technically_ speaking, in my opinion BCP20/RFC2317 is an
> acceptable solution. It is a trade off: it increases the number of
> DNS queries,

It doesn't have to increase the number of DNS queries if the parent 
slaves the child's zone(s). The parent will have the answer for the 
first query that arrives from a given resolver, and the child will 
receive subsequent queries directly. Also see
https://dougbarton.us/DNS/2317.html for more thoughts. :)

hth,

Doug

• Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] sub-/24 "delegation" [2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)]
• Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] sub-/24 "delegation" [2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)]

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ dns-wg Archives ]