Re: [DNSOP] Fundamental ANAME problems

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> Mon, 05 November 2018 17:51 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@bellis.me.uk>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3898130F0A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 09:51:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gzZKXSBy43IM for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 09:51:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hydrogen.portfast.net (hydrogen.portfast.net [188.246.200.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E7CB130EE5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 09:51:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cm-114-109-178-6.revip13.asianet.co.th ([114.109.178.6]:58481 helo=Rays-MacBook-Pro.local) by hydrogen.portfast.net ([188.246.200.2]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1gJj1w-0006Or-Kl (Exim 4.72) (return-path <ray@bellis.me.uk>); Mon, 05 Nov 2018 17:51:17 +0000
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <CAH1iCirXYsYB3sAo8f1Jy-q4meLmQAPSFO-7x5idDufdT_unXQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1811021543210.24450@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <20181105083526.GA12204@besserwisser.org> <7704C350-256A-42E3-B718-38FD449A2ADE@hopcount.ca> <770d5dc8-b8a3-c1c3-553f-0e9504389750@bellis.me.uk> <5BE07EBC.1010603@redbarn.org>
From: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <331499e9-00c9-3fca-c8f2-69883a89740c@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 00:51:15 +0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5BE07EBC.1010603@redbarn.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/1t9P_Hfi3_bbprTFSVTgdSur82I>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fundamental ANAME problems
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 17:51:29 -0000

On 06/11/2018 00:32, Paul Vixie wrote:

> please don't think this way, and don't do the right thing for the wrong 
> reasons. the paragraph above is how the camel came to be -- one draft at 
> a time, all well-meaning.

The front running alternative (ANAME) shifts the entire and far more 
considerable complexity entirely into the DNS, and affects both 
authoritative and recursive servers.  Even then, I don't think it'll 
work properly with geo-locating CDNs nor with DNSSEC.

ANAME is less complex for the browsers (zero cost, even), but it's close 
to another whole hump's worth of complexity for The Camel.

I accept that the cost of the HTTP RR is not zero, but if it does 
succeed, that cost will be far far lower than any of the alternatives.

cheers,

Ray