IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s standardisedprotocols//re: draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Wed, 02 December 2009 02:38 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA2353A6813 for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:38:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.242
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.242 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.357, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hg6uAuS3i6Pg for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:38:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from farside.isc.org (farside.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:bb::5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17F203A679F for <behave@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:38:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (drugs.dv.isc.org [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:820:214:22ff:fed9:fbdc]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "drugs.dv.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (not verified)) by farside.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69848E6063; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 02:38:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nB22c6v8005164; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 13:38:06 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from marka@drugs.dv.isc.org)
Message-Id: <200912020238.nB22c6v8005164@drugs.dv.isc.org>
To: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <4B156B5C.7060800@viagenie.ca> <003401ca72f1$7d0d0310$d40c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <000001ca72f4$1e1a30a0$c3f0200a@cisco.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:06:53 -0800." <000001ca72f4$1e1a30a0$c3f0200a@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:38:06 +1100
Sender: marka@isc.org
Cc: behave@ietf.org, 'Xu Xiaohu' <xuxh@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s standardisedprotocols//re: draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:38:20 -0000

In message <000001ca72f4$1e1a30a0$c3f0200a@cisco.com>, "Dan Wing" writes:
> To my knowledge, sites do not run two different implementations of DNS server
> s
> (e.g., ISC BIND and InfoBlox, or Microsoft and Unbound) where both DNSs back
> up each other.  Like NAT, DNS needs to be rock-solid reliable, and a single
> packet could take out a DNS server.

Actually lots of sites use multiple vendors for DNS.   That being
said there is not of lot of state to share between DNS servers.

DHCP servers on the other had need to share lots of state.  I don't
believe the failover draft (draft-ietf-dhc-failover-12) reached a
conclusion even though we implement most (all?) of it in our DHCP
servers.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email