Re: [DNSOP] ANAME high-level benefit question

"zuopeng@cnnic.cn" <zuopeng@cnnic.cn> Tue, 14 May 2019 07:31 UTC

Return-Path: <zuopeng@cnnic.cn>
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 5DDA21201DD for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 May 2019 00:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 jbR8lkXP77Du for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 May 2019 00:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp13.cnnic.cn [218.241.118.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFFDE12008A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 May 2019 00:31:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Foxmail (unknown [218.241.103.82]) by ocmail02.zx.nicx.cn (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf0B5pq3YbtpcxFNnAA--.39878S2; Tue, 14 May 2019 15:31:36 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 15:31:35 +0800
From: "zuopeng@cnnic.cn" <zuopeng@cnnic.cn>
To: =?UTF-8?B?T25kxZllaiBTdXLDvQ==?= <ondrej@isc.org>, "Brian Dickson" <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <CAH1iCiqSYKxRTySvkRksw9x-LqaP3QELwrG9+ikzqQ5ykiYOkA@mail.gmail.com>, <23766.36310.203310.826557@gro.dd.org>, <d0c94b4e-1550-31fd-4822-bd59d38115e5@bellis.me.uk>, <0553B8BC-6D67-4B65-909C-42CCB09B2B1C@isc.org>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7, 2, 7, 166[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <201905141531344981729@cnnic.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart421847814327_=----"
X-CM-TRANSID: AQAAf0B5pq3YbtpcxFNnAA--.39878S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoW7Jr1UAF18Kw1rAw4kWF43GFg_yoW8JrW7pF 48tr1UCrWDJF4xJw17Zw10gw4Yvr4DJ3yUJwn8tr1UGFy5J3WDKF1j9w4rua47Jr15AF47 Zayjgw1UGw1UCrDanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUmab7Iv0xC_Kw4lb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I2 0VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rw A2F7IY1VAKz4vEj48ve4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Ar0_tr1l84ACjcxK6xII jxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Cr0_Gr1UM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVAFwI0_GcCE3s1l84ACjcxK6I 8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26rxl6s0DM2AIxVAIcxkEcVAq07x20xvEncxIr21l5I8CrVAaz4v2 6cxKscIFY7kG0wAqx4xG6xAIxVCFxsxG0wAv7VC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUGwAv7VC2z2 80aVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lOx8S6xCaFVCjc4AY6r1j6r4UM4x0Y48IcxkI7VAKI48JM4xvF2IE b7IF0Fy264kE64k0F24lFcxC0VAYjxAxZF0Ex2IqxwCjr7xvwVCIw2I0I7xG6c02F41lc2 xSY4AK67AK6r4xMxAIw28IcxkI7VAKI48JMxC20s026xCaFVCjc4AY6r1j6r4UMI8I3I0E 5I8CrVAFwI0_JrI_JrWlx2IqxVCjr7xvwVAFwI0_JrI_JrWlx4CE17CEb7AF67AKxVWUXV WUAwCIc40Y0x0EwIxGrwCI42IY6xIIjxv20xvE14v26r1j6r1xMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVCY 1x0267AKxVWUJVW8JwCI42IY6xAIw20EY4v20xvaj40_WFyUJVCq3wCI42IY6I8E87Iv67 AKxVWUJVW8JwCI42IY6I8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26r1j6r4UMVCEFcxC0VAYjxAxZFUvcSsG vfC2KfnxnUUI43ZEXa7IU5XtxPUUUUU==
X-CM-SenderInfo: x2xr1vlqj6u0xqlfhubq/
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/HxUH2XmywojeIHK1GhPRuww2S_8>
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: Tue, 14 May 2019 07:31:48 -0000

configure several CNAME records to use multi-CDN service is also  widely used in industry, though this is not allowed by DNS standards.
shall we support this on protocal level? like defining new CNAMEx  record which contains "weight" attribute. 



zuopeng@cnnic.cn
 
From: Ondřej Surý
Date: 2019-05-12 14:59
To: Brian Dickson; dnsop
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] ANAME high-level benefit question
Also, I would argue that the ability to run ANAME at your own infrastructure
might drive less people to the “managed DNS” land or allow them to migrate
away without a significant loss of functionality.
 
One way or another, ANAME-like behaviour became defacto industry standard
and we need to have a solution on a protocol level.
 
Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý
ondrej@isc.org
 
> On 11 May 2019, at 16:34, Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> <[DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CNAME at apex.eml>_______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
 
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop