Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!ORC.OLIVETTI.COM!roode From: roode@ORC.OLIVETTI.COM (David Roode) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains Subject: Re: Politics of domain naming sytles (unc.edu) Message-ID: Date: 8 Jul 90 02:29:42 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Distribution: inet Organization: The Internet Lines: 18 There is a dichotomy between DNS management and address assignment. The in-addr.arpa domain is tied to the scheme in use on a particular level 2 network for address assignment. As you point out, through use of IP subnets the host address assignment can be distributed in a fashion similar to the DNS. IP subnets also distribute network management duties. There is no fixed mapping between the respective decompositions of IP nets and domains. You can have 4 domains on 1 IP subnets, 6 IP subnets in 1 domain, etc. You can also have instances of 4 domains on each of 10 subnets. This is a powerful model and I think it is not good to argue to institute a fixed mapping scheme just for the sake of in-addr.arpa. Whatever scheme is used in each IP network for address assignment and in each domain for subdomain creation has to take into account the realities of that site. One answer is not right for every site. The designs are explicitly specified to permit this flexibility.