On Dec 2 2010, Tony Finch wrote:
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Tony Finch:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
Me too. I think that the approach which Chris is suggesting sits more in LIR territory than with the RIRs.
What about legacy allocations where the DNAME needs to be placed in a reverse zone maintained by RIPE?
I don't think such a case actually exists. Could you be more specific?
Ah, now I look they seem to be ARIN's zones. (Our allocations include 128.232, 129.169, and 131.111.)
It's actually rather less likely that we would want to use the scheme for those large reverse zones. We also have 192.152.213/24 and 192.84.5/24 (which are also ERX and ARIN-hosted) for which it would be useful - but that's only two zones, not really worth worrying about. Locally, I have my eye on the several 193.60.x/24 zones we have delegated from JANET. (193.60/16 is delegated to JANET by RIPE.) So why didn't I start off by raising this in a JANET context rather than a RIPE one? Let's just say that I thought here a better place to get useful technical input... -- Chris Thompson University of Cambridge Computing Service, Email: cet1@ucs.cam.ac.uk New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QH, Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom.