[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


Cc: dnsop@cafax.se
From: Mark.Andrews@isc.org
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 02:25:15 +1100
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:00:44 +0900." <3FB2E5CC.6090805@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Sender: owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject: Re: well-known addresses / was DNS discovery


> Mark.Andrews;
> 
> > 	WKA adds yet one more set of addresses that need to be
> > 	filtered at the organisation's boundaries.
> 
> No. Read the draft section 4.1.
>
> >       Do you really
> > 	trust the your neighbors DNS servers to have the *same*
> > 	view of the world as you?
> 
> Are you having a view that the Internet still consists of voluntury
> organizations directly connected? Read the draft section 4.1.

	I believe organisations will continue to want to use split
	DNS.  Running split DNS will become much more than just
	runing nameservers and telling the clients where they are.
	It also involves reconfiguring routers to filter routes.
 
> > 	It is easy to accidently introduce single points of failure
> > 	into anycast solutions even though you have topologically
> > 	spread your nameservers.  It much harder to do this with
> > 	a non-anycast solution.
> 
> Anycast, just like multicast, itself is no robust. Read the
> draft section 4.1.

	I did read the draft.  You draft is forcing the use of
	anycast to get load sharing.  The other proposals don't
	have this property.  You can get load sharing w/o
	resorting to unicast.

> 
> > 	WKA doesn't remove the need to have another solution to
> > 	supply the search list.
> 
> That is not a requirement.

	It's not a requirement if the ONLY thing you want clients
	to know about the DNS is the addresses of nameservers.  In
	the real world there are lots of organisations that want
	to push other configuration details out.  The proposals
	you are competing with can support this.

	There have been cases where I have wanted to push out the
	other DNS configuration and times when I don't.  The lack
	of support for this is reason enough to reject this solution.

	You draft also states that the anycast addresses will have
	global scope.  Does this mean that we are going to have to
	introduce the concept of stub routers so that the correct
	prefixes are configured for nodes on a routerless network?
 
> 						Masataka Ohta
> 
> #----------------------------------------------------------------------
> # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.
--
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark.Andrews@isc.org
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.

Home | Date list | Subject list