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

[Nicholas Weaver <[e-mail]>]

On Jan 28, 2010, at 2:06 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
> The proposal in the draft moves almost all the cost of fixing the
> "problem" to the Recursive resolvers. Both by adding the option to the
> queries, and by the onerous requirement to fragment their internal cache
> based on source address of the stub-resolvers.
> This moves the cost of solving the "problem" from the CDN providers to the
> recursive resolvers operators, and I question if that is fair or justified.

OTOH, it only moves the cost of fixing the problem to the recursive resolvers where it IS a problem, as the ISP recursive resolvers, and self-run recursive resolvers, shouldn't generally have this as an issue.

> <dnsext-chair-hat=on>
> The open question for the working group is the following:
> "Is it one of DNS roles to provide information on where the query
> originated from?"

A different way of phrasing the question embedded in this draft: 

A significant and well established usage has, largely but not completely correctly, assumed that the DNS query address as seen by the authority provides meaningful information on the client's network location, as a side consequence of DNS resolution either being provided by the network provider or as part of the end network's own systems.

Should DNS enable this assumption to continue when DNS resolution is provided by a different party than network transport?