Re: Send-n, rat holes and real issues
Duane <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.enum |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Rosbotham, Paul wrote: > ...the point is the Send-N records are populated according to what NAPTRs *are* populated, not according to those which could theoretically be populated. In the latter example, it's saying "don't bother querying me until you've got at least 11 digits because there's nothing in ENUM with anything less". It's *not* saying "according to the numbering plan administrator, all numbers in this range are at least 11 digits long". Subtle difference. That was my point, if there is NAPTR records present you want to supplement it with a send-n, but what's the point in that since the NAPTR record would be present anyway. This is gone from wanting to know what prefix lengths are to wanting to know when a NAPTR is present by having a second one for good measure. -- Best regards, Duane