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 03:10 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 1CCDF11E8071 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 20:10:55 -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=[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 ebLjCgTP82y3 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 20:10:54 -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 0A36411E809A for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 20:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 45652 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2011 03:20:15 -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 03:20:15 -0000
Message-ID: <4E000B93.3030306@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:10:11 +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: Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimhLJfsmMe3AE34yLrOQ+zyZPBdgQ@mail.gmail.com>
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 03:10:55 -0000

Brian Dickson wrote:

> However, the rare time that it can't, IXFR-ONLY is important to have,
> to avoid fallback.

OK.

>>> The MCP can tell each DS to purge its IXFR database.
>> never purge purposelessly.
> Exactly. Thank you for demonstrating that you understand what I wrote.
> (I realize that understand is not synonymous with agree.)

Are you saying that:

   1) plain IXFR is fine

   2) some operators can't properly operate a little complicated
      IXFR with a dial to tweak purge behavior, which rarely causes
      bandwidth inefficient IXFR.

   3) to help the poor operators, yet another dial to tweak IXFR
      behavior MUST be added

?

Shane Kerr wrote:

> The reason this came up is that two operators (Ondrej and me) both
> encountered the problem in the real world and it adversely affected
> our operations.

Are your examples essentially different from Brian Dickson's?

							Masataka Ohta