IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Terminology question: split DNS

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 20 March 2018 09:04 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 DB8D81200C5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 02:04:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.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 tpZnzqQAHbCP for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 02:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x231.google.com (mail-it0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::231]) (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 7E72E120227 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 02:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x231.google.com with SMTP id y20-v6so1430658itc.5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 02:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vHwYk3SyBq4/maZvsLBGvdw9EkrgvRnwqjMU2zmNUUQ=; b=ZvCMduhcAXpVS9g2ahkPRas/STxuOSPPJ2rbkUqN2lJzwjAH9R6tWef2uRPWRasyiZ OuZUnCdw2J+iu4hzLOoUyo7vSzLGpUGA7GjbsLtafZ/oHvECq3adj2hYv2AUEoLSWvor 20BRZWgcVNlie6+p+GosT6KMofNlJXVvdlHpn3H37NwPdzqI28e5WwfceIKElA+Y0WQs gNCp4eilHAIsB1NYaQrQD/W/LVQu7mvW1pOFIf3zaSVaeQdFKbjo6MulqNF6YpU+6bQc yDCuVcWLMYNX69d/3vs4YuPbRp3zK/hQxl580B9s8JNiYBR1EayDPYRJcZKHEU5KfgZ9 EMqw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vHwYk3SyBq4/maZvsLBGvdw9EkrgvRnwqjMU2zmNUUQ=; b=Bi8TkLQzg6YBhRz5Wn6yzlBFk4bMBxmGOSaqzUTTuZ5CuDaQUnXeSFrDUAQbD4GuJo RquG/SoGQQaZ4MB8tcmuTouyrKf18TGqREx+OG4ONjzGZdoiI8CRfTYg0MJF3iDZ6JIQ Wx8KHqg8WO8Waq/DfCKc9L3YSoFoD9HJLwsaw4OdHiBpxkfj2FqMdnHCq2UNPNX1tTIr Elww7jOiNt/xR/7i2zeOzzYopjC8hXvSWQTdueIyONjcYrXQIayk3NMv3wzbenoL1lBt tv6+88latQvjgapMoXATG1V0TJ7tdWDAakilJp6hR5SZU2InvYLLKJUFZ59tzkmsoW/2 nYtA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7GUcIRGkLwOasRaJSLtzrm3fqr3HWi3a7pn9OE+qTbmLJxVKn3f GITMn67U7fOTAO8ni8aABjvuOJ/mhpsjldJx26jgYw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELuT/BGB5SvFtwpW3zznRDtouejXMhVhkF6vvMDNbrauaNykSetCQ+ZvRQR3U6JB0VoUy2ByCBBXl0Ke9iDP+Pk=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:2b89:: with SMTP id h131-v6mr1933306ita.97.1521536686838; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 02:04:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.226.203 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 02:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.79.226.203 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 02:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1803191711420.12290@bofh.nohats.ca>
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>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 09:04:45 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1nCzRXUrLG54URyvhr1NKLoyCshN4gQ22agUa5fvXmgEg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bb6c5f0567d45d21"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/sYEQNA4CV863_cCDbRxi3xKjJrM>
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 09:04:50 -0000

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> 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
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email