> I don't really see the CIDR analogy As an analogy, it doesn't directly apply to your particular point, which is why it's an analogy. It would apply to, say,

> I don't really see the CIDR analogy As an analogy, it doesn't directly apply to your particular point, which is why it's an analogy. It would apply to, say, a network engineer. > an application (correctly) caching DNS records I'm pretty sure that merely putting the word "correctly" in parentheses doesn't make it so, nor, more to the point, remove the fact of the controversy on that point. > that different applications cache differently This is merely an argument in favor of the caching being done by the OS, which would also be aware of a device moving networks. Device mobility (without reboot) is one of those relatively recent uses imposed onto the Internet. > Another comment said it won't work with DNSSEC, that's another example stemming from going against the design and basic principles of the DNS. One could lay the blame for incompatibility at the feet of DNSSEC, too, as that technology is also a response to modern needs of the Internet that has little, if anything, to do with any original design or basic principles. > the common internal/external split-dns setup is fundamentally unsound. So, again, I still can't tell what it is you're opposed to, on so fundamental a level that you would call it "unsound", with split-dns specifically, separate from the issue of private addressing being used. Is it any different if two separate nameservers are used instead of split-dns on one? Perhaps, most importantly, what's the sound, not-misguided, alternative that provides a comparable (maybe even better) experience for the user?