Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1?

[Vadim Antonov <avg () sprint net>]

> 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
Frame Relay)?

> It will be stronger when we get SIG RR's and dynamic update.
> Perhaps we can revive it?

Yeah, sure.

--vadim