Re: [dnsext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ah-dnsext-rfc1995bis-ixfr-02

[Edward Lewis <[e-mail]>]

At 0:08 +0900 6/22/11, Masataka Ohta wrote:

>See 2) to see an example of the current situation.

It would be a real shame to make something operationally smooth, eh?

>>  And thanks to dynamic update (which was published after RFC 1995), the
>>  role of IXFR has grown to surpass AXFR as the standard transfer mechanism.
>
>I'm afraid you don't know the history of DNSIND.

RFC 1995 - August 1996
RFC 2136 - April 1997.

Didn't say that they weren't discussed closely in time, just 
referenced the publish date.

>>  From a recovery perspective, what if the master server loses it's
>>  increment memory and cannot do AXFR? Each slave might be called on to do
>>  AXFRs when it would be more efficient for one slave to do the AXFR and
>>  then answer IXFR requests until the system stabilizes.
>
>What if what?

"Each slave might be called on to do AXFRs when it would be more 
efficient for one slave to do the AXFR and then answer IXFR requests 
until the system stabilizes."

Which is what happens today.  The desire is to make it better.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at [phone]

I'm overly entertained.