Re: [DNSOP] Terminology question: split DNS

"Darcy Kevin (FCA)" <kevin.darcy@fcagroup.com> Tue, 20 March 2018 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <kevin.darcy@fcagroup.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 49EDC126C0F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 09:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 lqtsQ0bDNR1o for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 09:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shbmap08.extra.chrysler.com (shbmap08.out.extra.chrysler.com [129.9.75.106]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5592B1276AF for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 09:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odbmap09.oddc.chrysler.com (Unknown_Domain [151.171.137.34]) by (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 53.C1.28534.3A131BA5; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 12:06:59 -0400 (EDT)
X-AuditID: 81094b68-7acd498000006f76-bc-5ab131a3004d
Received: from mxph3chrw.fgremc.it (Unknown_Domain [151.171.20.47]) by (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 9E.19.16700.3B131BA5; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 12:07:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mxph4chrw.fgremc.it (151.171.20.48) by mxph3chrw.fgremc.it (151.171.20.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 12:07:11 -0400
Received: from mxph4chrw.fgremc.it ([fe80::cc0c:cb4f:1b3f:2701]) by mxph4chrw.fgremc.it ([fe80::cc0c:cb4f:1b3f:2701%18]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 12:07:11 -0400
From: "Darcy Kevin (FCA)" <kevin.darcy@fcagroup.com>
To: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] Terminology question: split DNS
Thread-Index: AQHTv6pqnUbkLSxoh0SaiKmB+1y/IqPYHsiAgAAD9YCAAAJ1AIAAKBAAgAAFFACAAMZegIAAMYLw
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 16:07:10 +0000
Message-ID: <cae2cc909a6645dcb73f598914a93212@mxph4chrw.fgremc.it>
References: <3D490CA8-0733-47AD-A088-113B1116B207@vpnc.org> <CAKr6gn0RrJEzLCg-nzmwpY7R4XUtRXudQZWdgpz2Vt3X1+BL4Q@mail.gmail.com> <D2E84EBB-9AE5-469B-B8A5-37DBD9CD8D44@fugue.com> <5AB00268.4040902@redbarn.org> <9098.1521492996@dash.isi.edu> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1803191711420.12290@bofh.nohats.ca> <CAPt1N1nCzRXUrLG54URyvhr1NKLoyCshN4gQ22agUa5fvXmgEg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1nCzRXUrLG54URyvhr1NKLoyCshN4gQ22agUa5fvXmgEg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [151.171.20.218]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_cae2cc909a6645dcb73f598914a93212mxph4chrwfgremcit_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrEIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyfXWnku5iw41RBg/bpSzuvrnM4sDosWTJ T6YAxigum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSujH/37QrmZVecer+euYFxVUYXIyeHhICJRMfuRtYuRi4OIYHt jBIX+lqYYBJf9rSzQyTWM0pMPniXDcJZxyjR8OkSVMtORomXl28xgrSwAbUsvHKXuYuRg0NE QFZi7+sokLAwUPhi8zYWEFtEwFRi+bV9bBB2lMTDtl4wm0VAVeLAoQnsIDavgJPE18arUMs+ M0nsWHwULMEpECixY+oMsEGMAmIS30+tATuVWUBc4taT+VBnC0gs2XOeGcIWlXj5+B8rhG0g sXXpPhYIW0ni/OqbjBC9mRK/T35mhFgsKHFy5hMWkMUSAis5JPbdvMg6gVFiFpIds5D0zELS MwvoZ2YBTYn1u/QhShQlpnQ/ZIewNSRa58xlRxZfwMi+ilG6OCMpN7HAwEIvtaKkKFEvOaOo sjgntUgvOT93EyMwZhs5vTN2MM7ZanmIUYCDUYmHt0FxY5QQa2JZcWXuIUYJDmYlEV716A1R QrwpiZVVqUX58UWlOanFhxilOViUxHkFL6+PEhJITyxJzU5NLUgtgskycXBKNTBquhSLqgXE yT/9F/+x2q9DwfVaukyY7Hod20/HOU/8eFSkXh12bdmENi/Gy1tdl7EUvtVK7P9wKfnzdKcl Z3ZrPeTW9H9iyl7UXLbguICWoXkc661g/4anNXyT3iRwu+rP/3LvTt7phts2Gzb8cXhquUVC 8/GMdZq9W8PvuFw1Mm2K2H5dT02JpTgj0VCLuag4EQDbaeyP1QIAAA==
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrGKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyfbWIvu5mw41RBvv/WFvcfXOZxYHRY8mS n0wBjFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGf/u2xXMy6449X49cwPjqowuRk4OCQETiS972tm7GLk4hATW M0pMPniXDcJZxyjR8OkSK4Szk1Hi5eVbjCAtbEAtC6/cZe5i5OAQEZCV2Ps6CiQsDBS+2LyN BcQWETCVWH5tHxuEHSXxsK0XzGYRUJU4cGgCO4jNK+Ak8bXxKtSyz0wSOxYfBUtwCgRK7Jg6 A2wQo4CYxPdTa5hAbGYBcYlbT+YzQZwtILFkz3lmCFtU4uXjf6wQtoHE1qX7WCBsJYnzq28y QvRmSvw++ZkRYrGgxMmZT1gmMIrOQjJ2FpKyWUjKZgG9ySygKbF+lz5EiaLElO6H7BC2hkTr nLnsyOILGNlXMUrlpyTlJhYYWOrlp6Qk6yVnFFUW56QW6SXn525iBEdZp+IOxsZFlocYBTgY lXh4TylujBJiTSwrrsw9xCjJwaQkytv5a0OUEF9SfkplRmJxRnxRaU5q8SFGCQ5mJRFe9Wig HG9KYmVValE+TEqag0VJnFelwCFQSCA9sSQ1OzW1ILUIJivDwaEkwesiD7RHsCg1PbUiLTOn BCHNxMEJMpwHaLi7IFANb3FBYm5xZjpE/hSjLce3vQ/amDm2PHoJJA+AyRsvXoNElr1pYxZi ycvPS5US530iDNQsANKcUZoHN/8VozjQm8K8b6SAsjzAxAs3+RXQUiagpdkzQT4qLklESEk1 ME7u69nwx4Vv+u3oqtbovQduTNaIj7Mo9t35RSw8if/NxWXbmTS7nsz7knh4yh7RXap7Fkx4 0vrqvVDSNt1i7QmJvveYLV5NXsGVOuHhFKFQe8aS9NI+/jt7vV+3/fy47NXl9aY2udGLk5c9 ZjpjuP2NJ8MSvV7nhwFOH6Zk3L9sGH83ZYtKq5MSS3FGoqEWc1FxIgCbcc9HeQMAAA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/evaDxaEyRQ822kAeYkMVMywzc-8>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Terminology question: split DNS
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 20 Mar 2018 16:07:21 -0000

The whole phenomenon is what I would call “context-sensitive resolution” (although we don’t like neologisms, so I’m not proposing that). Context-sensitive resolution encompasses “split DNS”, “views”, policy-based resolution (blacklists, etc.), GSLB algorithms, geolocation, even plain old round-robin. The abstract, overarching concept is for the resolver to make a decision on how to answer a particular query, based on one or more attributes of the query transaction, including the “existential” attribute of what resolver was asked the question in the first place (aka “splitting”).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        - Kevin

From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 5:05 AM
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>;
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>;
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Terminology question: split DNS

Yes, split horizon is the original term, which has experienced linguistic drift and is now just split DNS.

I think there is a useful distinction to be made between the various different ways that global names may have different meanings in different contexts.

RFC 2826 talks about this a bit, and RFC 8244 comments further in section 4.1.1. Neither document attempts to enumerate the use cases, however.

I think that split DNS is a specific use case, and does not encompass the whole phenomenon. If we want to talk about the whole phenomenon, this may not be the place to do it—I don't actually know of a term for the general idea.. But I'm pretty sure that "split DNS" is not that term.

On Mar 19, 2018 21:15, "Paul Wouters" <paul@nohats.ca<mailto:paul@nohats.ca>> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2018, John Heidemann wrote:
+1 on "split-horizon dns" as the term, over "split dns" and some other
neologism, on the basis of running code and existing documentation and
existing wide use.

I and google disagree:

"split dns":  72900 hits
"split horizon dns": 5640 hits


If the document is about explaining terminology, it must explain "split
dns" and can say another term for it is "split horizon dns", but not the
other way around.

I personally don't hear (or use) "split horizon dns"

Paul

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org<mailto:DNSOP@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop