To:
"Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>
CC:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date:
Thu, 13 Nov 2003 05:31:26 +0900
In-Reply-To:
<3FB22E96.1050504@ehsco.com>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
Subject:
Re: the least-worst default
Eric A. Hall; > OTOH, the well-known-address approach *can* work for everybody by default, > at least if a couple of minor changes are made. In particular, it needs to > use a multicast address rather than a unicast address No, thanks. Any other minor changes? > -- servers won't be > able to listen on a unicast address that isn't configured in the OS, but > they should be able to bind and listen to a standardized multicast address > without any problems. But, we are talking about configuration which may or may not be OS level one. > The important thing here is that this is the only approach that > has the potential for 100% coverage, Are you saying CORE/RP/SS of CBT/PIM-SM/SSM exist 100% of the time? Or, are you suggesting DVMRP? What happens, if you are using some multicast protocol and your ISP, which is running your DNS recursive servers, are using a different multicast protocol? Note also that CORE/RP/SS are single points of failure that, for robustness, you must use 3 multicast addresses and three CORE/RP/SS. Though link local multicast is OK (though link local broadcast is enough with the CATENET model of the Internet), it does not mean inter-link multicast is OK, either. Masataka Ohta #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.