Re: [dnsext] Chairs statement on "client-option" debate

[Masataka Ohta <[e-mail]>]

Wilmer van der Gaast wrote:

>    - The main weakness is the latency penalty. A user has to resolve
> www.foo.com first, connect to that server, send a query, get a 30x
> response. Then disconnect, resolve the new hostname, etc etc. A
> well-written app can limit this to just the first query, but this
> requires putting this logic into the web application, which can be
> considered a layer violation.

Address selection based on latency is an issue at or above
the transport layer that trying to address it at the IP layer
is the layer violation.

At the connectionless IP layer, there is no notion of round
trip nor round trip latency.

>    - This will either mean forwarding user agents to URLs with IP
> addresses in them, or to URLs like http://lhr00.mail.foo.com/. This by
> itself gives several problems:
>      * These URLs look ugly, are not easy to remember, not practical to
> bookmark/pass from person to person (many CDN nodes are accessible
> only to customers of ISPs hosting the node), needlessly expose
> internals to the user (yesterday my request went to London, and today
> it goes to Amsterdam??).

I'm afraid I have already shown, with real world examples, that
the real world content providers such as yahoo and google actively
use the URLs you called "ugly".

						Masataka Ohta