Breaking up a class for delegation

[Niall O'Reilly]

On 24 Sep 2007, at 20:10, Bischof, Ralph F. (MSFC-NNM04AA02C)[SAIC]  
wrote:

> 	My thought is that instead of having a single delegation to the
> two nameservers as I do now, I will have to take the single delegation
> (164.129.in-addr.arpa) and give it 256 entries. The first 128 entries
> would be delegations to at least two nameservers for the original  
> Center
> and the second set of 128 entries to at least two nameservers for the
> new project. Then, each of the two delegatees (is that a word?) would
> need to also build up 128 zone files as they saw fit.
>
> 	Is there another way? If not, I am good with that idea. I just
> wanted to make sure that I have not missed something that has come out
> lately.

	There is another way, using DNAME, out since quite a while, but
	still less well known than it deserves.

	You mention IVV.  Let's suppose the other Centre is called JWW,
	and that the IVV folks remain responsible for the delegation of
	the 164.129.in-addr.arpa zone.

	If the IVV folks add the following records to this zone, the JWW
	people can undertake responsibility for a new zone,
	jww.164.129.in-addr.arpa.

$ORIGIN 164.129.in-addr.arpa.
jww	IN NS  	ns1.jww.nasa.gov.
	IN NS	ns2.jww.nasa.gov.
	IN NS	nasans4.nasa.gov.
128	IN DNAME 128.jww
129	IN DNAME 129.jww
; ...

	It looks like $GENERATE would be useful here.

	The JWW folks then have to place their PTR records in the (single)
	jww.164.129.in-addr.arpa zone.

	This involves once-off light effort from IVV, and needs no changes
	to existing PTR data for the /24-blocks (0-127) which they plan to
	continue to use.

	An extension of this scheme, involving more effort for both IVV and
	some 'more central part' of the organization, could be used if
	operational dependency of JWW on IVV were not acceptable, and a
	suitable 'more central part' were agreed.  That would be a political
	question.  8-)

	/Niall