[dns-wg] Fwd: [enum-wg] Tier-2 provisioning: NS vs CNAME/DNAME

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 at ucd.ie>
> Date: 7 July 2004 10:48:56 IST
> To: enum-wg at ripe.net
> Cc: Niall O'Reilly <niall.oreilly at 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