Hello, I wouldn't cross-post, but there seems to be nobody home over on the enum-wg list, and it is related to DNS ... /Niall Begin forwarded message:

From: Niall O'Reilly <niall.oreilly@ucd.ie> Date: 7 July 2004 10:48:56 IST To: enum-wg@ripe.net Cc: Niall O'Reilly <niall.oreilly@ucd.ie> Subject: [enum-wg] Tier-2 provisioning: NS vs CNAME/DNAME

Hello ENUMmers,

I'm about to become responsible for a Tier-2 ENUM registry, part of the Irish ENUM Trial. I expect to use BIND as the name server platform for this purpose. I have supposed (perhaps naïvely) that the conventional delegation mechanism, using NS records in the parent zone, would be appropriate. This involves creating a new zone as each new telephone number is registered, and configuring the zone specifically on each of Tier-2 name servers.

I'm not sure I really want to buy in to this level of per-number provisioning activity, and see apparently significant advantages in using the technique of RFC2317 (Classless IN-ADDR.ARPA delegation) to make life simpler.

The advantages I see are the following.

The Tier-1 zone file becomes smaller, with just one CNAME (or DNAME) record per delegation, rather than two or more NS records.

At Tier 2, the named configuration file needs only per-server, rather than per-number- per-server provisioning activity, and propagation of newly-registered numbers is driven by NOTIFY rather than by reloading the updated configuration file on each server.

This looks like the way to go, but perhaps I'm missing something ?

Best regards,

Niall O'Reilly UCD Computing Services