IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex?

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Fri, 08 February 2019 04:11 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
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 2EBC8130E11 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 20:11:48 -0800 (PST)
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 4tNZFe88TX2q for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 20:11:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 03B85128B01 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 20:11:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 40253 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2019 04:02:47 -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; 8 Feb 2019 04:02:47 -0000
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <fcd790a2-414b-491e-01e2-9aa92f7b1c4e@nic.cz> <CAAeHe+xySnrvpD4-nhi3T0qiEmz8h0ZNUE_2kie7ctq8YPGRPA@mail.gmail.com> <56839e19-afe9-df4b-d432-09a949cc658c@nic.cz> <06E02AB3-5E3B-4E1F-9B23-BB0810F73B66@fugue.com> <CA+nkc8BLA1wVSQ6DEbM7py98Rq94P-=XJtEBzcJAD9LOucN2Ew@mail.gmail.com> <8a7a70e4-7214-c127-8542-0131bbc823bc@nic.cz> <dc68fa90-0d4c-b9d6-09cb-eec55b9f9077@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <7751AB0C-F738-4270-9C7E-2937F773187F@hopcount.ca> <2B4B9C25-F2CF-43D3-B0CC-64E7D7CA7D6C@isc.org>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <eab3b6a6-6032-c09c-7082-95eb295b823f@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 13:12:14 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2B4B9C25-F2CF-43D3-B0CC-64E7D7CA7D6C@isc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/7o5LC3vPBeu2zYG8ItEg9e40pic>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] RFC 1035 vs. mandatory NS at apex?
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: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 04:11:48 -0000

Mark Andrews wrote:

> A single anycast server DOES NOT and never can provide diversity from the client’s perspective.
> Additionally multiple servers in the same /24 (IPv4) or same /48 (IPv6) should be treated as a
> single server for diversity testing as these are accepted longest accepted prefixes.

This WG should conclude that IPv6-style anycast is useless and
tell IESG obsolete it.

>> RFC 7108 describes the implementation of a method that includes a single point-of-failure by design (see discussion of IDENTITY.L.ROOT-SERVERS.ORG in section 5).
>>
>> In short, this is an operational question with multiple answers and I don't like the idea of formalising an over-simplistic restriction in the protocol specification.

How do you do IPv6 anycast with L servers?

							Masataka Ohta

v2.3.2 | Report a Bug | By Email