IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] fyi [Pdns-users] Please test: ALIAS/ANAME apex record in PowerDNS

Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org> Mon, 22 September 2014 11:21 UTC

Return-Path: <rwfranks@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A87E81A0084 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 04:21:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.622
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 BKdG_QfoF8Cp for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 04:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yk0-x22f.google.com (mail-yk0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B81231A007E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 04:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yk0-f175.google.com with SMTP id 20so1233138yks.20 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 04:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=82CEh/0ZEVJQLEcfmsrtJzlGYadtV+pi1qWwtOfgKu4=; b=jU1ABjXSjFMsuwvTCIMPuM7Rp6kQH0X984f5IrOYjJ+VqBvVTDMpN9hFF162iSf89y 840Kpm971Dq8CpvpIOy6TdwQlmjJUC9v91FzDnIHcUcO5hp6x1rg+4EFdYFIaFhLKS8t ZmsCcqy3dzpSpJFSkLyfhVfs4u0MOENwsmooBbvP0To6X7+HtyZaW/KGLgFFiHsYJ+8V hlLS9B1IlFp+Z4XH+1Cr1zoa2kdnf721VpM81CloVYLWtQvJsqaTQWQH7cMI/3g5jkQ0 ZqcGsz/OjO13v2szPRiv8ti0Ovinnt/DsNEWacKFXnk5/3deeJVCC9BpCKovPJej4boc Yd1A==
X-Received: by 10.236.123.203 with SMTP id v51mr25275572yhh.41.1411384885075; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 04:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rwfranks@gmail.com
Received: by 10.170.168.65 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 04:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1409221047520.3000@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <20140921115222.GB16178@xs.powerdns.com> <541F1AE8.6010709@redbarn.org> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1409221047520.3000@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
From: Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:20:45 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: FlWMQJ4jtdhc5wTswpcdBBJ8jeg
Message-ID: <CAKW6Ri7HYB0BdHGJG9aTXs3=JP4wG1B5uZpk7Y0S60XGAXayQw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf301af53db7661a0503a5a605"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/_5ZqWRlTJITTwCw2xw_719VHRFs
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] fyi [Pdns-users] Please test: ALIAS/ANAME apex record in PowerDNS
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 22 Sep 2014 11:21:26 -0000

On 22 September 2014 11:03, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> wrote:

> I can see roughly three ways this might be done, in order of increasing
> complexity...
>
> (1) Master-only. The master observes an ANAME record at the apex of a zone
> it loads and uses it to periodically refresh the relevant records in the
> zone (as if you had a cron job running dig | magic | nsupdate).
>
> Disadvantage: potentially lots of XFR traffic if the TTLs are low.
>
> Why would TTL be relevant here?

Is the master not acting as a "partial slave" for the target RRs?
In which case, the timing should depend on the SOA refresh period.

No reason to do XFR.  Each (assuming these to be plural) ANAME target could
be resolved independently.


Rs
Dick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email