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

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[e-mail]>]

Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> writes:

> What I find completely perplexing about this conversation is that you,
> Markus and Toke, all of whom I know to be smart people, think this is
> hard.   What is hard about it?   I think the reason you think it's
> hard is simply that you don't know how to do it.

Ah no, this was not was I was trying to express. As you say, technically
implementing what's currently in your draft is doable, but adds a small
to moderate amount of complexity. This can be acceptable, *if* it
provides a corresponding benefit. However, I do not believe that it
does, for two main reasons:

1. In every encounter I've had with an ISP-provided DNS server, that
   server is either (a) flaky, (b) censored or (c) both. So limiting
   ourselves to getting replies from just one upstream for a given query
   is going to give worse performance than using all available servers
   (or just doing our own full recursing from the root).

2. Even if DNS queries are paired with source prefixes, the client still
   has to pick which source prefix to send the DNS query from; how is it
   going to do that? (This may just be me that is ignorant of the
   details of the MPvD architecture; if so, please do enlighten me).

Together, these points mean that as far as I'm concerned, what you're
proposing is adding complexity to achieve a behaviour that is going to
result in *worse* performance than doing the simple thing. Which is not
a good proposition, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Now, as I said a few mails back, I am perfectly happy to be convinced
that there *is* a benefit worth paying the complexity cost for; but,
well, someone is going to have to do the convincing... :)

-Toke