at least two problems with this approach:

- delegation does not imply announcement or reachability DNS registration should -NOT- do the same, but it does.

Only if DNS is mis-configured. One more incentive for people to keep their DNS working?

- People thus far have not been willing to deploy the segmentation needed to split DNS delegations along CIDR bounds. Until then we are "stuck" with classful alignments in DNS.

It is not critical, because the IN-ADDR zones work like that anyway. Although i agree that fixing DNS in that respect would be helpful.

- This was considered and abandoned as another attempt to overload the DNS.

Oh, c'mon. "Purity of idea" crap again. TXT RRs were introduced specifically for that purpose.

The flaw in this approach is that the top level delegation point can always override any downstream delegation point. (can you say restraint of trade? Sure you can..)

Depends on point of view. I would say it IS desireable. Then, as any lawyer would say you if you disallow Internet service providers asking for renumbering you'll have to shut down telephones first. There is a very strong case that renumbering in communication nbetworks is an accepted practice. (Can you say ISDN or X.25/X.121 or Frame Relay)?

It will be stronger when we get SIG RR's and dynamic update. Perhaps we can revive it?

Yeah, sure. --vadim