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

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

> From: Sean Leach <[e-mail]>
> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:25:59 -0700
> 
> On Jan 28, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > 
> > i don't think that's a general enough solution to be worth
> > standardizing.  please investigate the larger context of client
> > identity, beyond the needs of CDN's.
> 
> I have to agree with and Carlo/Wilmer here (no surprise) that we should
> keep this focused as this is a real (and growing) problem that we
> (UltraDNS) face all the time as well.  Both from our anycast recursive
> service and for our auth DNS customers whose end users utilize OpenDNS,
> Google DNS etc.  There are more and more anycast recursive systems
> popping up daily it seems, so the problem is only going to get worse.
> 
> Adding identity etc. feels like a different problem that doesn't need to
> be solved with this standard.  Just my .02

if we're going to add something to a global protocol and a global system,
we have a burden to do good engineering, not just offer point solutions
that help a single industry.  there's a reason why web browsers can state
their preferred language, which is customized content.  if we're going to
customize dns responses at all (which is controversial) then we have to
allow for the possibility that some dns content producers will want to
customize based on things beyond just client ip.

(also, many client-ip addresses will be nat'd, and in that sense, ip is no
longer end to end, and so including a client-ip in the query is a layering
violation beyond just its fealty to dns incoherency.)