IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"jarrod.b.johnson@gmail.com" <jarrod.b.johnson@gmail.com> Thu, 22 October 2009 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <jarrod.b.johnson@gmail.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 C5BF23A682F for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 iFA6FVI4tPiS for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:49:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f218.google.com (mail-fx0-f218.google.com [209.85.220.218]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C870E3A67F7 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm18 with SMTP id 18so9534171fxm.37 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:49:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :reply-to:subject:in-reply-to:x-mailer:mime-version:content-type; bh=YVFQliMC7ii8aoBEawbveJWG40b3Kyg8FS8ZVip7Pv4=; b=X9f3wm3bPh43dSFCOhxsEQeKZL+RkzQUmBkVXcCheY+9hfkFUwdYQpmPRQoDegei80 JXoLA76GB8o/O578g5NeSS/UZaeIyfVXWG6zZBpMzUn/U10GCLuGryhrKoMzMp7dNUmE 0vwWQdECMp3+6gwz+VzvxsbPVJPRMgIJL9QDA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:reply-to:subject:in-reply-to:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; b=k4Kz9O3SrYS02E7heR6uvIrckjAVQq4tx+oQtrx5vtz7TySDaiFijoGP65G/H4sUSF MYDzQdzDlZj+kFgl8htmo+g1/Ugc5zh37qNpjIwAsBUOT2bxqoduhK/yslGz6hR4xGS3 TJOg6tiESxSsV4WL63CH6QopPc7Aw0fT//AVI=
Received: by 10.103.85.12 with SMTP id n12mr4380722mul.29.1256237375089; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:49:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www.palm.com (174-151-251-228.pools.spcsdns.net [174.151.251.228]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y2sm1434882mug.49.2009.10.22.11.49.23 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:49:34 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4ae0a93e.02e2660a.2f48.ffffd163@mx.google.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:49:34 -0400
From: "jarrod.b.johnson@gmail.com" <jarrod.b.johnson@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <200910221814.n9MIETQR002070@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
X-Mailer: Palm webOS v1.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Alternative__boundary__1256237388008"
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
Reply-To: "jarrod.b.johnson@gmail.com" <jarrod.b.johnson@gmail.com>
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 18:49:33 -0000

What about use of anycast addresses for severs?

Thomas Narten wrote:

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

_______________________________________________

dhcwg mailing list

dhcwg@ietf.org

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email