Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-gersch-dnsop-revdns-cidr-00.txt

[paul vixie <[e-mail]>]

On 3/30/2012 10:19 AM, Ray Bellis wrote:
> With the current scheme it's possible to delegate longer prefixes, and this is a necessary feature.
>
> The stuff Dan was saying about two alternate representations concerns me, though.  As written, by default:
>
>   192.168.64/18 is 1.0.m.168.192
>
> but
>
>   192.168.64/24 is 64.168.192
>
> which is not a sub-domain of the enclosing /18 representation.
>
> This way lies dragons, I think...

+1.

thus my earlier observation: RFC 1101 supports classless networks even
though it didn't mean to. RFC 2317 is entirely compatible with RFC 1101
(there's only one delegation tree covering both.)

if there's a need for a new netblock-specific DNS schema like the one in
the gersch draft, then i recommend learning from what we did in RPZ,
where the prefix size is _always_ given as are all octets of the
mantissa except the "::" longest-zero string which is given as ".zz.".
more information about RPZ can be had from:

https://deepthought.isc.org/article/AA-00525/0/Building-DNS-Firewalls-with-Response-Policy-Zones-RPZ.html

and specifically from:

https://deepthought.isc.org/article/AA-00512/0

which has the actual spec, in .txt and .pdf format.