consolidating in-addr.arpa data

[G.W. Haywood]

Hi there,

On Sat, 16 Sep 2023, Greg Choules wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2023,  G.W. Haywood wrote:
> ...
> > Is there a reason not to split the /8 into two /9s or something like that?
> ...
> Although it is technically possible to do reverses on non-octet boundaries
> (for example, see https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2317.txt) it is a
> complete pita, in my experience. Personally I would not head down that
> path. Stick to /8, /16 or /24.

Please could you elaborate a bit?

Does RFC1918's 172.16/12 mark a special case, or is that a PITA too?
I've used such addresses, but never at anything like their full scale.

My "something like" might have included 10.16.0/12 and 10.24.0.0/12,
is your PITA comment equally applicable?  I'd be surprised if the OP
couldn't manage with 2^20 IPs in a segment - but then I guess he does
work in the .gov domain.

I'm not trying to be awkward, I'd really like to know in case I ever
come up against this myself.

(And it's the thirtieth anniversary of RFC1517.  What did we miss? :)

-- 

73,
Ged.