To:
Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>
Cc:
Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
David Terrell <dbt@meat.net>
Date:
Wed, 8 Aug 2001 18:29:54 -0700
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<5.1.0.14.2.20010808120719.03df9bd0@mail.amaranth.net>; from dts@senie.com on Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 12:12:15PM -0400
Reply-To:
David Terrell <dbt@meat.net>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.2.4i
Subject:
Re: (ngtrans) Joint DNSEXT & NGTRANS summary
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 12:12:15PM -0400, Daniel Senie wrote: > At 11:44 AM 8/8/01, Robert Elz wrote: > > Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 11:13:52 -0400 > > From: Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com> > > Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010808111308.03f697d0@mail.amaranth.net> > > > > | Not to mention melting the 'net under ever increasing DNS load, since > > we'd > > | no longer be able to cache anything. > > > >Huh??? > > > >No-one ever said anything about changing the definition or use of the > >TTL field in DNS replies. If you get a TTL that says an address is > >valid for a day, then you can keep using it for a day without checking > >again. Or you can check again every 5 minutes if you want to, but > >the answers will just keep coming back from your local cache, each with > >a TTL 5 minutes shorter than the previous time... > > Reread what Keith wrote. If applications are going to use DNS to check for > changes in addressing, how is caching going to help? You're suggesting the > local caches just answer the every-5-minute lookups, but that's useless if > the DNS lookups are used as a part of multihoming. I interpreted the > periodic lookup as being a way for applications to find out that a remote > machine has migrated to a new address. If local caches mask that migration, > how's that help? > > Multihoming has to involve resiliancy. If the addresses are cached for a > day, saying "oh, your application will start working again tomorrow" is > unlikely to cut it. I think they're talking about reestablishing existing connections if the address published in the DNS changes. I think that's pretty silly. Application protocols should (where appropriate) be able to reconnect, or users can -- and DNS records near a renumbering event should have low TTLs, or multiple A* records for a multihomed situation, and applications should not be caching records excessively (or at all, really), and making multiple attempts at multiple A* records. -- David Terrell | "We must go forward, not backwards; upwards, Nebcorp Prime Minister | not forwards; and always twirling, twirling, dbt@meat.net | twirling towards freedom!" http://wwn.nebcorp.com/ | - The Simpsons