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

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Tue, 21 June 2011 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0756A21F8595 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 08:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.09
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id np-32miR6JRK for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 08:09:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 38FD821F8594 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 08:09:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 51715 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2011 15:19:06 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 21 Jun 2011 15:19:06 -0000
Message-ID: <4E00B3F2.9030204@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:08:34 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ja; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz>
References: <4DB81069.3080404@nic.cz> <4DF9B5BD.7010900@nic.cz> <a06240803ca1fd7525c50@10.31.201.23> <BANLkTinjRDHyKH-tLEoejodXb2+7qQLO7w@mail.gmail.com> <a06240801ca2102b8b4f2@10.31.201.23> <BANLkTikoVVaXF2_LJ3KHm6P7oFpfC+n2tw@mail.gmail.com> <a06240801ca21246f76de@10.31.201.23> <BANLkTinVfuL0WEYwaycTaAnWDS9vYF5NjQ@mail.gmail.com> <4DFC9C20.4030401@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <BANLkTimhLJfsmMe3AE34yLrOQ+zyZPBdgQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E000B93.3030306@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <a06240801ca264fd4c0ce@[10.31.204.119]>
In-Reply-To: <a06240801ca264fd4c0ce@[10.31.204.119]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ah-dnsext-rfc1995bis-ixfr-02
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:09:23 -0000

Edward Lewis wrote:

>> 3) to help the poor operators, yet another dial to tweak IXFR
>> behavior MUST be added
> 
> Ohta-san,
> 
> Times have changed since

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

> 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.

>  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?

							Masataka Ohta