Re: [DNSOP] New Draft Charter

bill fumerola <billf@mu.org> Sat, 22 March 2008 01:10 UTC

Return-Path: <dnsop-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dnsop-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dnsop-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 345923A69F8; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.540, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n4mLE6oWhfGd; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:10:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 529CB3A6CCC; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:10:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FB7E3A6AB7 for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:10:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WEDYed4DHqvG for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D15EB3A69F8 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1098) id 29F6F1A4D7E; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:08:32 -0700
From: bill fumerola <billf@mu.org>
To: Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com>
Message-ID: <20080322010832.GQ52132@elvis.mu.org>
References: <20080314040611.GF7553@x27.adm.denic.de> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0803141852150.17638-100000@citation2.av8.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0803141852150.17638-100000@citation2.av8.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 6.3-MUORG-20080227 amd64
X-PGP-DEAD-Key: 1024D/7F868268
X-PGP-DEAD-Fingerprint: 5B2D 908E 4C2B F253 DAEB FC01 8436 B70B 7F86 8268
X-PGP-Key: 1024D/AE9EB579
X-PGP-Fingerprint: 2E51 E3DE 2C52 C84D 750F 8ADE 1F18 67FB AE9E B579
Cc: Peter Koch <pk@denic.de>, IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] New Draft Charter
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/dnsop>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dnsop-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsop-bounces@ietf.org

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 06:52:44PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> What clause would DNS Root Anycast stability fall under?

anycast has so much more to do with routing than dns. dns just happens
to be an often used consumer of anycast. there are others. it seems
more appropriate to centralize problems with anycast routing in a
WG that deals with routing than one that deals with a consumer.

if i felt the use of anycast by root server operators is causing
instability, i would take that up with the individual root server
operator(s) that i was experiencing instability with. but i'm not.

this WG certainly doesn't have the authority to directly instruct
individual root server operators how to configure their networks.

IANA could intervene. however, i would imagine IANA would want to see
agreement amongst multiple respected experts in the areas of routing and
dns operations. they'd need proof that your claims of root server
instability as a result of the use of anycast.

given the previous results of threads started/hijacked by you for this
purpose in this WG, i'm not sure what sort of verbage in the charter
would grant you the soapbox on top of which you wish to preach.

if you want to prove anycast [in]stability i'd suggest submitting and
presenting a technical paper to a respected org (USENIX comes to mind,
there are others). even within the IETF, you don't even need a WG charter
to submit an internet draft. individual submissions are made all the
time. often, a WG picks them up after sufficient discussion and review.

reasonable minds cannot ignore solid evidence. surely every avenue (many
exist beyond this WG) hasn't been so jaded by past experiences as to
reject your valid technical arguments, if they exist.

-- bill

[ full disclosure: i work for a company that uses anycast for dns and
		   other services, without instability. if anything, it
		   is in my best interests to know about a wolf at the
		   door from using anycast. i've just never heard anything
		   more than loud barking.

 
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop