IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Ask for advice of 3 new RRs for precise traffic scheduling

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Fri, 15 December 2017 17:16 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.org>
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 4D8531293DF for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:16:47 -0800 (PST)
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 HZGv9bCA7rEt for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:16:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [24.104.150.213]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E84F61200CF for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:16:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (dhcp-153.access.lah1.vix.su [24.104.150.153]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9E98D61FA2; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 17:16:45 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: 左鹏 <zuopeng@cnnic.cn>, Robert Edmonds <edmonds@mycre.ws>, bert hubert <bert.hubert@powerdns.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 09:16:45 -0800
Message-ID: <2963886.DngpFJ6m7L@localhost.localdomain>
Organization: none
User-Agent: KMail/4.13.0.30 (Linux/4.13.16-202.fc26.x86_64; KDE/4.14.32; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <3519c0a3.328f.1605941fa4b.Coremail.zuopeng@cnnic.cn>
References: <2017121315404971736813@cnnic.cn> <20171214214056.r37cz5rbmpxwjw3q@mycre.ws> <3519c0a3.328f.1605941fa4b.Coremail.zuopeng@cnnic.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="nextPart1718149.DTi4WEc3rW"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/sEkkDCiIqcDAhvhfNxqZmmhrfKo>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Ask for advice of 3 new RRs for precise traffic scheduling
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: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 17:16:47 -0000

On Friday, December 15, 2017 04:19:44 PM 左鹏 wrote:
> thanks for your comment!
> 
> 
> > -----原始邮件-----
> > 发件人: "Robert Edmonds" <edmonds@mycre.ws>
> > Or, put another way, we like existing resolver implementations just
> > fine, we just wish there were a lot more resolver instances, and closer
> > to clients :-)
> > 
> 
> 
> yes, more resolvers are good to improve user experience.
> but also maybe we should notice each CDN node has different capacity.(it is
> the real in practice). a "weight-aware" rosolver can schedule clients to
> diffent nodes according to weight pricisely.

load vs. capacity information varies too often to publish guidance about it in DNS. if a 
CDN can topolocate an HTTP initator, it can vary its answer according to load, far 
better than it can predict or estimate both load, capacity, and topolocation in a way 
expressible in the DNS.

> or shall we do something only
> for authoritative server like defining the weighted A/AAAAx? 
> btw, any comments on the weightd CNAMEXs for multi-CDN? :)

we should do neither. the path you are recommending increases complexity by a 
greater order of magnitude than any possible or prospective resulting benefit.

-- 
P. Vixie

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status