Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-pusateri-dnsop-update-timeout-00.txt

Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com> Sat, 25 August 2018 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <pusateri@bangj.com>
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 6710D130EDE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Aug 2018 12:06:55 -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, 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 55SX7ro_IbZ7 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Aug 2018 12:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oj.bangj.com (amt0.gin.ntt.net [129.250.11.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D14AC130ECE for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Aug 2018 12:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.10.126] (unknown [107.13.224.116]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by oj.bangj.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4330D23FA; Sat, 25 Aug 2018 15:02:35 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com>
In-Reply-To: <2127542.Mqhh3nicbA@linux-9daj>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 15:06:51 -0400
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A397B48D-0F0F-4B60-813B-6409EC4A97E2@bangj.com>
References: <153507165910.12116.7113196606839876181.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAPt1N1=cafnVmnNM2eSF67QbgRk8hUEAd2Gwuqx4OUehPZSmyQ@mail.gmail.com> <AC3FE6CF-CC11-44D3-8C50-BC19C295F001@bangj.com> <2127542.Mqhh3nicbA@linux-9daj>
To: Paul Vixie <vixie@fsi.io>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/PjmUxy3qFFGeoKv0V0mYCmapleE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-pusateri-dnsop-update-timeout-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 25 Aug 2018 19:06:55 -0000


> On Aug 25, 2018, at 2:53 PM, Paul Vixie <vixie@fsi.io>; wrote:
> 
> On Saturday, August 25, 2018 6:11:48 PM UTC Tom Pusateri wrote:
>> ...
>> 
>> In most cases, having the primary remember the lease lifetime should be
>> enough. But if the outage is longer than the lease lifetime, it would
>> better if the secondary would also have that information.
> 
> you seem to be proposing that the "secondary" servers, by which i mean those 
> not the primary master, alter the zone contents in a way that's visible to 
> query initiators, independently. if so, i oppose this, in the form proposed.
> 
> to have more than one source of DNS truth requires "multi-master", so that 
> zone identity can be partitioned and healed, following partitions and healings 
> of the connectivity of each responder and its cloud of reachable clients. one 
> of the hard problems here is split horizon. another is incompatible deltas at 
> heal time. the database world has grappled with this topic, having varying 
> degrees of success, for as long as there have been computer networks.
> 
> i would like to see DNS add "multi-master". several proprietary vendor 
> extensions do various parts of this -- though none of them that i know of can 
> handle split horizon or incompatible deltas. and tellingly, none has been 
> opened to the community in the form of a standardization effort.
> 
> if on the other hand you only intend to carry the timeout information as zone 
> data transferred in AXFR/IXFR in case a sysop decides that the primary master 
> will be offline indefinitely and wants to manually promote one of the 
> "secondary" servers to the role of primary master, then i have no objection. 
> that's why the TUU and TUD RR's of my 1996 "defupd" proposal are in-zone data 
> rather than stored in some ancillary location reachable only by the primary 
> master.
> 
> can you verify that you do not intend secondary servers to automatically 
> expire records, independent of hearing IXFR/AXFR updates from the primary 
> master, after the primary master applies its own copy of your TIMEOUT RR's?
> 
> -- 
> Vixie
> 

I agree that the secondary servers should not expire records. In the case of promotion, I also agree that this sounds like a good strategy.

Thanks for pointing out this distinction.

Tom