Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis draft

> On 11 Sep 2018, at 7:39 am, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> 
> In article <20180910165922.GA31252@isc.org> you write:
>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 09:48:05AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
>>> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>>>> I agree with Paul Vixie that classes were never defined well enough to
>>>> be made to work properly, at least at Internet scale.
> 
> Agreed.  Since it's a different name space, there wouldn't be any
> point since you can get the same effect without any software changes
> by starting from a different root.
> 
>> This is not in any way an *urgent* consideration, but I do sometimes
>> wonder what we (or, y'know, our grandchildren) are going to do if we
>> ever run short of type codes.
> 
> Since the type code is a 16-bit field, if we allocate a new type every
> week, it'll take over a thousand years to run out.  I think this is one we
> can safely ignore.

If we end up with a type per protocol because people want wildcards to work
we will burn through types much faster.  We don’t know exactly what the future
will bring.  I do know that burning then 65000 times as fast as we *need* to
is not a good idea.  I do know that saying that classes can’t work is self
defeating and will take a lot, lot, lot more of work to undo than just continuing to support multiple classes.  

> R's,
> John
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka@isc.org