Re: [DNSOP] ANAME high-level benefit question
Olli Vanhoja <olli@zeit.co> Wed, 15 May 2019 08:03 UTC
Return-Path: <olli@zeit.co>
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 9496E120190 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2019 01:03:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=zeit-co.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 q2cM70H_FrYi for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2019 01:03:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22c.google.com (mail-lj1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2940A1200EF for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2019 01:03:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id k8so1624426lja.8 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2019 01:03:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zeit-co.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=BuP7M8gPaEgdGT1TWWSmpP5Cfaw1RHtJS0Y/J4fjm1I=; b=Z4+5yxm97CQKmrAQDPVE+ZDxtZwlGRCPt/PR6/9pb/RrebxmhHNqx2eSRmIh/FtVq+ 0KTEqAbP3rR1XvcMqKH335y4BH/DXZY1DPcs2BvP2it7H/Kj/VxV18yaxqVO/jWTnrQB XP22nqOM+0tPkpz66m3goxmZTzAyNtca5tRMFxUW6G0ksK+jGDqL9iShB6hF8O9U4HVS TlxFhDPN2AmcjdFvdbIjWBgqIODHcDC++JgKlRa+Kh5Sbvv8Jq4dvCRqcGH1zkq4L9mo kHpZhvLULb+VNSurH/arPf1ltHl32rIvf3xSd09tzm6MnlD9rEcv6RVj/mp6Nnvkpr3p Qy3A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=BuP7M8gPaEgdGT1TWWSmpP5Cfaw1RHtJS0Y/J4fjm1I=; b=pTxjYzciKdLF1LWTrkntw6htWfvjpnVG940JFiNjOVAY9u1qQbdxjKX873O3g0zhhX RCHQ2aPR6Y5tvYIPAeGicoxJClpP/WSP/1J8eHq4+oO3HM6Jgts3WRimh/lVsr3Z7k7C R3bbUgwh2eATlM7DK2+50Lg7sUe9BnvnnOJh/Rqnddn5RTjaJHpy9HeAXpsqhXLvOpxI y0hwp3llhv04LnqlhpJNcxJuv5V63gnV7hMuS0qq9dViE26K1PhK8RAejmUAzH7/2d2b MqmY0QkJmt0yEI2PY8pCVoP0OV5GEMzGqIiBFfGRD9PHcuR7/TtFK2IqvOB7U5I3eSQ4 bh7A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWgpzmjS1sXsFcRjkYpZ4s9mr6DSVA+4mo84qdsXjtkpqSMUYNa xl3r5yVh4nl7vbnBPA65GE/pCKYrpBgvEP7v4mAW2g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwUlfuh3kdXNvMD9V1wbTYNpoTnwjzjQJui3zcJ4VvS/4N8lyFyeSuJwB1gWEAOpRnjce/99DL2T23ZckdldaI=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:84a:: with SMTP id g10mr9189113ljd.98.1557907424368; Wed, 15 May 2019 01:03:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <201905141531344981729@cnnic.cn>
In-Reply-To: <201905141531344981729@cnnic.cn>
From: Olli Vanhoja <olli@zeit.co>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 11:03:33 +0300
Message-ID: <CABrJZ5FupFveBxqRx8va=NcoFpuvu01r6Gf2mA=qTaYux4ViAA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "zuopeng@cnnic.cn" <zuopeng@cnnic.cn>
Cc: Ondřej Surý <ondrej@isc.org>, Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/dWnf2y_Fh4cwgzNEls1tDbywfzI>
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: Wed, 15 May 2019 08:03:48 -0000
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:32 AM zuopeng@cnnic.cn <zuopeng@cnnic.cn> wrote: > > 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. I believe this is typically done at higher level. This higher level often supports serving different responses based on geographical location, latency etc.This information is derived from the IP prefix using EDNS and by using anycast IP addresses etc. I don't think any of this should be at the rr level. I do agree that the higher level configuration language would be neat to standardize but it's out of scope of this draft.
- [DNSOP] ANAME high-level benefit question Brian Dickson
- Re: [DNSOP] ANAME high-level benefit question Vladimír Čunát
- Re: [DNSOP] ANAME high-level benefit question Dave Lawrence
- Re: [DNSOP] ANAME high-level benefit question Ray Bellis
- Re: [DNSOP] ANAME high-level benefit question Ondřej Surý
- Re: [DNSOP] ANAME high-level benefit question zuopeng@cnnic.cn
- Re: [DNSOP] ANAME high-level benefit question Olli Vanhoja
- Re: [DNSOP] ANAME high-level benefit question Richard Gibson