IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Root reasons (aka "why") - HTTP vs SRV vs ANAME vs CNAME

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> Thu, 08 November 2018 04:56 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@bellis.me.uk>
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 6B593127332 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 20:56:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 4urECRDzkKJo for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 20:56:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hydrogen.portfast.net (hydrogen.portfast.net [188.246.200.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06938130E01 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 20:56:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [88.212.170.147] (port=59436 helo=Rays-MacBook-Pro.local) by hydrogen.portfast.net ([188.246.200.2]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1gKcMK-00070y-JZ (Exim 4.72) for dnsop@ietf.org (return-path <ray@bellis.me.uk>); Thu, 08 Nov 2018 04:56:00 +0000
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <CAH1iCirLfSEUcTf=p5bHuFJSFie_BoPh4X=89w2mpxgNpR9HkA@mail.gmail.com> <2BDA0411-202D-4199-A43B-3FDC50DC47F5@isoc.org> <CAH1iCirdkU-jYLRGeOm3DcdsReShyOez3oU5hw5sJYEtQyyqGw@mail.gmail.com> <D378E8F5-A667-4649-90ED-7C3612F0A013@isoc.org>
From: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <a4087032-acb2-0f2e-f84b-31d2885d8390@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 11:56:03 +0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D378E8F5-A667-4649-90ED-7C3612F0A013@isoc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/xHfReqYooRnCLeXLk6DxM4g-d-k>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Root reasons (aka "why") - HTTP vs SRV vs ANAME vs CNAME
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: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 04:56:11 -0000


On 08/11/2018 11:47, Dan York wrote:

> For that reason, wouldn't all the resolvers (or at least an extremely high %) need to be upgraded to support the new record?

They don't _have_ to be, but performance is improved when they are 
(since only an upgraded resolver will include the A and AAAA answers in 
the additional section).

The critical path is the browsers, since none of this works unless they
start looking up the HTTP record.

As a transition mechanism, site operators would still need to publish 
their existing A and AAAA records by whatever means they currently do 
(even if that's e.g. a CNAME flattening on the authority server).

Ray

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email