Using DNAMEs for RFC2317-like delegations

[Paul Vixie]

Chris Thompson <cet1 at hermes.cam.ac.uk> writes:

> That's the conventional advice, of course, but does lead to a proliferation
> of reverse zones. It seems to me that if one believes that DNAMEs really do
> work (by virtue of the synthesized CNAMEs), then one ought to be able to use
> them in an RFC2317-like way in cases like this:

DNAMEs really do work.

> $ORIGIN b.a.in-addr.arpa.
> @       SOA ...
>         NS  ...
> 0-127   NS  (delegation for the /17)
> 128-191 NS  (delegation for the first /18)
> 192-255 NS  (delegation for the second /18)
> 0       DNAME 0.0-127
> 1       DNAME 1.0-127
> ...
> 127     DNAME 127.0-127

$GENERATE 0-127 $ DNAME $.0-127

> 128     DNAME 128.28-191
> ...
> 191     DNAME 191.128-191

$GENERATE 128-191 $ DNAME $.128-191

> 192     DNAME 192.192-255
> ...
> 254     DNAME 254.192-255
> 255     DNAME 255.192-255

$GENERATE 192-255 $ DNAME $.192-255

> and then the delegatees have only three zones
>
>   0-127.b.a.in-addr.arpa.
>   128-191.b.a.in-addr.arpa.
>   192-255.b.a.in-addr.arpa.
>
> to look after, each of which they populate as if they were (incomplete) 
> reverse zones for b.a.in-addr.arpa.

yes.

> This is only a thought experiment: has anyone actually tried to do
> something like this?

yes.
-- 
Paul Vixie