Re: [dnsext] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-vandergaast-edns-client-ip-00.txt

[Colm MacCárthaigh <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Paul Vixie <[e-mail]> wrote:>
> i love how somebody else (CDN providers) violate all existing assumptions
> (by creating requestor-specific DNS replies) which then makes the Internet
> work "less well" for lots of people... who are then constrained from doing
> what were previously reasonable things (like using distant recursive servers).

Can you expand upon the "less well" ?

>> Do you want third-party DNS providers to not suck for youtube, akamai,
>> Google, and a good fraction of the net people use every day?  If so, you
>> need this.
>
> if youtube and akamai and google want to suck, let them suck.  they weren't
> the first movers and they won't be the last and redrawing the protocol to
> support their flawed technical model is not in the global system's interest.

Surely a large point of extension mechanisms is to cater for unusual
and ad-hoc circumstances in an interoperable way?

> this incoherency should be dealt with more harshly, perhaps by minimizing
> TTL to 5 minutes, and sharing a single DNS cache across global providers.

Why?

> any CDN who relies on what i call "stupid DNS tricks" to deliver their
> advantage should upgrade to something at the WWW layer, and leave DNS alone.
>
> especially with DNSSEC coming.

This I-D seems interoperable with DNSSEC, even NSEC3, on my reading.

-- 
Colm