In <9303021347.AA06706@mcsun.EU.net>, <Piet.Beertema@mcsun.EU.net> wrote:
Interaction is fine. But RIPE stepping into someone else's authority is quite something different! I don't see any problem with that as long as we (european networking people) agree to send update to the RIPE-NCC instead of sending them to the NIC. RIPE-DB and DNS are entirely different objects. I would like RIPE to notify me *in some cases* about discrepancies between my entries in the RIPE-DB and my DNS entries, but I do *NOT* want RIPE to step into my authority by asking or telling the NIC to change *MY* DNS info because they found discrepancies: I may well have good reason why those discrepancies exist.
This is a bit of an aside to the debate above, but there is something that has struck me as obvious which would make the management of in-addr.arpa much easier for everyone, and help with the above issue. Why not get all of 193.in-addr.arpa delegated to the RIPE NCC, and have it in turn delegate xx.193.in-addr.arpa to the service providers ? That way we don't have to deal directly with the creaking NIC, but authority is still delineated clearly by existing DNS mechanisms. This has not been possible in the past, due to the restriction of in-addr DNS delegations needing to be on byte boundaries, *but* that is exactly how the RIPE supernet block is being assigned. Or have I missed a good reason why this won't work ? Keith Mitchell Network Manager Public IP Exchange keith@pipex.net 216 The Science Park keith@unipalm.co.uk Cambridge, UK Phone: +44 223-424616 Fax: +44 223-426868