To:
"Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>, "Masataka Ohta" <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Cc:
<dnsop@cafax.se>
From:
"BELOEIL Luc FTRD/DMI/CAE" <luc.beloeil@francetelecom.com>
Date:
Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:32:05 +0200
content-class:
urn:content-classes:message
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Thread-Index:
AcNXJV2QX96dlOcqQ2eO7oysXEfc3wAUWvvA
Thread-Topic:
avoiding proxies
Subject:
RE: avoiding proxies
Hi Eric and Masataka > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Eric A. Hall [mailto:ehall@ehsco.com] > Envoye : jeudi 31 juillet 2003 07:14 > A : Masataka Ohta > > on 7/30/2003 11:10 PM Masataka Ohta wrote: > > > I'm not sure what you mean "proxy". > > I mean a third-party agent with knowledge of the application > and/or the > environment. My examples were poorly formed but are valid in > the general > sense, since we are still talking about relying upon extraneous agents > which have to be managed explicitly and separately from the > application > end-points themselves. Certainly there are advantages to doing so > voluntarily (equitable benefit from the investment in resources), but > requiring this model really needs to be avoided. > > > On the Internet, the mechanism to relay requests to servers over > > multiple links is called routing. > > Exactly, let's let routing do the job it is supposed to be providing > already anyway, rather than layering on even more mandatory services. > Ok I may understand what do you wanna say. 1- we could use multicast to transport DNS requests. But multicast is not easy to deploy within access networks such as xDSL, RTC... (NBMA links) 2- we could use anycast But it is not clear for me how we could use DNSSEC in such scheme. There is still and perhaps a bigger issue there if we need to distribute keys. (I do not argue that RA-based solution is better there ;+) Luc #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.