IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] ANAME high-level benefit question

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> Sat, 11 May 2019 09:34 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 68BCE12013B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 May 2019 02:34:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=portfast.net
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 yOOWvgRK7849 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 May 2019 02:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.portfast.net (mail.portfast.net [IPv6:2a03:9800:20:1::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABD67120131 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 May 2019 02:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=portfast.net; s=dkim; h=Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=S0A2T1TaDa+bUA3MSzhhSS/WHvhX0eAIjgQ76jpT39U=; b=F+0fVjr6UPTac0+Q3Xxf1oSbF RtJWeefjCCg9gQY2QBfO+OIKIkr0oo+KAhNSR/nW45PK71eV1O/KajxOwN2cecTLv/CVizEKcn9rj T0QKkbtFIjHePVuyLjhu1JP5G5iqE/CjnSD+XDe+6YzqHlJeQFLMtk31GrzAqeLRHCNxM=;
Received: from [203.155.148.62] (port=4387 helo=Rays-MacBook-Pro.local) by mail.portfast.net ([188.246.200.9]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) id 1hPOP5-00031j-LN (Exim 4.89) for dnsop@ietf.org (return-path <ray@bellis.me.uk>); Sat, 11 May 2019 09:34:52 +0000
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <CAH1iCiqSYKxRTySvkRksw9x-LqaP3QELwrG9+ikzqQ5ykiYOkA@mail.gmail.com> <23766.36310.203310.826557@gro.dd.org>
From: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <d0c94b4e-1550-31fd-4822-bd59d38115e5@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Sat, 11 May 2019 16:34:49 +0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <23766.36310.203310.826557@gro.dd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------610645150FAC28FBD53A1FF1"
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/6GqbgWISGiPr67g2tqRLB_VKFP4>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] ANAME high-level benefit question
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: Sat, 11 May 2019 09:34:58 -0000


On 11/05/2019 15:54, Dave Lawrence wrote:

> I have a related question ... is allowing only targets on their own
> infrastructure currently a limitation most such providers have?

I don't know about "most", but certainly some.   See e.g. the attached 
message posted here 2018/06/25.

Ray
--- Begin Message --- 
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 7:02 AM, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> wrote:

> > Even that though requires that the authoritative server be capable of
> > waiting for an asynchronously retrieved value before it can respond.
> >
> > For some authoritative servers that might require a substantial redesign.
>
> That isn't required if the ANAME target records are fetched/updated by an
> out-of-band provisioning process. A server will want to do it this way if
> its query rate is bigger than the number of ANAME targetss divided by
> their TTLs.
>

A challenge with that is that many people now use geographic or latency
based DNS routing based on the resolver IP address or EDNS-client-subnet.
That's one of the reasons why Route53's ALIAS works only for targets that
Route53 is authoritative for.

-- 
Colm

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email