Has PSI been assigned network 1?
avg at sprint.net
Sat Apr 22 22:24:25 UTC 1995
>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
> the DNS.
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?
More information about the NANOG