Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-netboot-05 - how to proceed?

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Thu, 22 October 2009 18:14 UTC

Return-Path: <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B16F53A6778 for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:14:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.963
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.963 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.636, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 ogcFLGUPjts2 for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from e8.ny.us.ibm.com (e8.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.138]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C06F43A677D for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from d01relay07.pok.ibm.com (d01relay07.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.147]) by e8.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n9MEBOE8031581 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:11:24 -0400
Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d01relay07.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id n9MIEZfG1229036 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:14:35 -0400
Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n9MIEVYu032582 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:14:31 -0600
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-246-174.mts.ibm.com [9.65.246.174]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n9MIEUgu032445 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:14:31 -0600
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.12.5) with ESMTP id n9MIETQR002070 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:14:29 -0400
Message-Id: <200910221814.n9MIETQR002070@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <OF2692FAA8.2F4AF98C-ONC1257657.002954C1-C1257657.00298474@de.ibm.com>
References: <200910062234.AAA07005@TR-Sys.de> <AD61797F-DB2D-4889-8888-5339521ADE8F@nominum.com> <OF029AB4A7.6EEA954A-ONC125764B.004E95CE-C125764B.00536F30@de.ibm.com> <FBD14811-7C9A-4FCB-8707-071A7CA12B96@nominum.com> <OF73909874.9B93FADE-ONC1257653.002E96C8-C1257653.00302A9F@de.ibm.com> <589F59F0-3E17-44FF-8918-FED51F03EE4D@nominum.com> <4ADC156D.1070709@ucd.ie> <669B95F2-FA8F-47AA-AB8A-4292DDB1A4EF@nominum.com> <4ADD70CB.2080409@ucd.ie> <OF2692FAA8.2F4AF98C-ONC1257657.002954C1-C1257657.00298474@de.ibm.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Thomas Huth <THUTH@de.ibm.com> message dated "Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:33:28 +0200."
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:14:29 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-netboot-05 - how to proceed?
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:14:28 -0000

I am opposed to relying on DNS round robin as the
default/best/recommended approach to do load balancing when booting.

Round Robin DNS load balancing is not officially supported in the IETF
because the only way you can get it to work properly is to disable DNS
caching (i.e, use TTLs of 0) so that a query always goes back to a
server than can explicitely modify the ordering. But disabling caching
has negative implications for DNS performance, reliability, etc. You
then also have to have specially modified servers (that reorder
results based on various criteria) that are again not officially
blessed by the IETF.

The IETF DNS WGs have discussed this many many times, and have so far
not been willing to bless such load balancing. I do know that it is
used in some environments and can be a useful tool at times.

If it is a requirement that remote booting include support for load
balancing, I think we need to first make note of that and develop a
proper solution. There are number that could work that are fairly
simple (e.g., consider the DNS SRV "weight" mechanism).

That said, it is not clear to me that load balancing is actually a
requirement that needs solving. At least not for preboot loading.

Comments?

Thomas