Re: [dhcwg] DDNS-DHCP [6]: Relationship between DNS TTL and DHCP lease length
Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com> Tue, 24 June 2003 17:11 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA24760 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:11:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5OHB0416335 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:11:00 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UrJs-0004FO-Ms for dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:11:00 -0400
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA24631 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:10:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UrIv-00041q-Qq; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:10:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UqRn-0001Vg-J9 for dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:15:25 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22145 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:14:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UqRS-00041W-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:14:46 -0400
Received: from sa.vix.com ([204.152.187.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UqRH-000401-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:14:35 -0400
Received: from sa.vix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sa.vix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFAD313968; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 16:13:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from vixie@sa.vix.com)
From: Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>
To: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DDNS-DHCP [6]: Relationship between DNS TTL and DHCP lease length
In-Reply-To: Message from Bruce Campbell <bc-namedroppers@vicious.dropbear.id.au> of "Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:29:20 +0200." <Pine.LNX.4.44.0306241204050.10688-100000@x22.ripe.net>
X-Mailer: MH-E 7.3; nmh 1.0.4; GNU Emacs 21.3.1
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 16:13:10 +0000
Message-Id: <20030624161310.DFAD313968@sa.vix.com>
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
> Still, when new records are created, you have to propagate the > information outwards. Rsync, AXFR and IXFR are all unsuitable for > this in a frequently changing environment due to their associated > overhead. ... "sez you." before it was called dnsext, this wg was called dnsind. that stood for Incrementalzonetransfer, Notificationofchanges, and Dynamicupdate; these were the three features that the powers that were decided were needed in order to support DHCP and IPv6, which were the New things in ~1994. the architectural paradigm was to use Update to get things into the master, Notify to make the slaves aware of these new changes without waiting for an SOA timer to expire, and IXFR to get these changes distributed to the slaves without having to transfer all the unchanged data as well. interestingly, ohta-san preferred a different, masterless model, but he still did IXFR when consensus went in favour of the i-n-d model. also interesting was microsoft, who went for a masterless model using non-DNS channels for synchronization (but they never did implement healing after a partition event.) now as to performance. a company who was bundling BIND8 into a dhcp/dns integration product stress tested the i-n-d model, and found all kinds of early (pre-Y2K) data corruption bugs in our IXFR implementation. their goal was to be able to shoot thousands of DHCP-originated PTR updates per second through BIND8 and have the slaves remain synchronized -- and it all works fine. therefore i dispute ("sez you") your assertion of "unsuitable". various other commercial entities, mostly non-BIND based, have also reached these transaction volumes, using the i-n-d model. you may not think it's pretty, but noone has yet found a real world workload that the model can't address if you use the right hardware and software to support the load. _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- Re: [dhcwg] DDNS-DHCP [6]: Relationship between D… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] DDNS-DHCP [6]: Relationship between D… Robert Elz
- Re: [dhcwg] DDNS-DHCP [6]: Relationship between D… Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] DDNS-DHCP [6]: Relationship between D… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] DDNS-DHCP [6]: Relationship between D… Robert Elz
- Re: [dhcwg] DDNS-DHCP [6]: Relationship between D… Mark Stapp
- Re: [dhcwg] DDNS-DHCP [6]: Relationship between D… Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] DDNS-DHCP [6]: Relationship between D… Edward Lewis
- Re: [dhcwg] DDNS-DHCP [6]: Relationship between D… D. J. Bernstein
- Re: [dhcwg] DDNS-DHCP [6]: Relationship between D… Michael Richardson
- Re: [dhcwg] DDNS-DHCP [6]: Relationship between D… Robert Elz
- Re: [dhcwg] DDNS-DHCP [6]: Relationship between D… D. J. Bernstein
- Re: [dhcwg] DDNS-DHCP [6]: Relationship between D… Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] DDNS-DHCP [6]: Relationship between D… Bruce Campbell
- Re: [dhcwg] DDNS-DHCP [6]: Relationship between D… D. J. Bernstein
- Re: [dhcwg] DDNS-DHCP [6]: Relationship between D… Paul Vixie
- Re: [dhcwg] DDNS-DHCP [6]: Relationship between D… Paul Vixie
- Re: [dhcwg] DDNS-DHCP [6]: Relationship between D… Bruce Campbell
- Re: [dhcwg] DDNS-DHCP [6]: Relationship between D… D. J. Bernstein