Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[e-mail]>]

Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> writes:

> El 16 ag 2017, a les 9:26, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[e-mail]> va escriure:
>> Ted Lemon <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> writes:
>> 
>>> El 15 ag 2017, a les 19:32, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[e-mail]> va escriure:
>>>>> In both of these cases, you are better off doing what we discussed
>>>>> earlier and setting up your own DNS cache, possibly with a whitelist
>>>>> for domains you want to send to the ISP forwarder.
>>>> 
>>>> Sure, and that's what I usually do. But if we can't specify that
>>>> behaviour for homenet, at least trying all upstream DNS servers gives a
>>>> better chance of finding one that works.
>>> 
>>> I'm really sorry, but I'm actually having trouble contextualizing the
>>> failure mode that you are talking about here.   Didn't I agree with
>>> you in a previous message that we should try all the upstream DNS
>>> servers?
>> 
>> Hmm, right, I guess you did. My point was more that an MPvD-aware client
>> that only uses on PvD may experience worse performance than one that
>> uses the in-home resolver. But I guess the client should be smart
>> enough to deal with that?
>
> I think this is a real edge case. You have two connections, the DNS
> server on one of them is broken, the DNS server on the other is not,
> but the second connection performs so much worse than the first that
> you'd rather use an answer from the DNS server on the second to
> contact a service on the first.

Well, it's quite clear from this discussion that we have different ideas
about how likely this is. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree
on that, for now at least...

> If you were in an engineering staff meeting trying to justify adding
> extra code to do this, what would you have to say to get the group to
> agree to do the work? What would that code look like?

Ah, but I'm not arguing for adding code, I'm arguing that we should
remove some :)

-Toke