IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] RFC 3484 section 6 rule 9 causing more operational problems

Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org> Wed, 04 March 2009 15:16 UTC

Return-Path: <vixie@vix.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F3F828C39B for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 07:16:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7DMLmupBcu9W for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 07:16:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nsa.vix.com (nsa.vix.com [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:bb:230:48ff:fe5a:2f38]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D46728C39C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 07:16:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nsa.vix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nsa.vix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 475E8A1018; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 15:17:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vixie@nsa.vix.com)
From: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] RFC 3484 section 6 rule 9 causing more operational problems
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:09:22 GMT." <alpine.LSU.2.00.0903041400220.8701@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <alpine.LSU.2.00.0903041400220.8701@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.1; nil; GNU Emacs 22.2.1
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:17:12 +0000
Message-ID: <20563.1236179832@nsa.vix.com>
Sender: vixie@vix.com
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 09:26:22 -0800
Cc: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:16:46 -0000

i disagree.  dns-based load balancing is an unfortunate overloading and
should never be done.  RFC 3484 is correct as it is.

re:

> It seems that Vista implements RFC 3484 address selection, including the
> requirement to sort IP addresses. This breaks a great deal of operational
> dependence on DNS-based load balancing, as well as being based on an
> incorrect understanding of how IP addresses are allocated.
> 
> RFC 3484 needs to be updated to delete this rule, so that the order
> returned from the DNS is honoured when the client has no better knowledge
> about which address is appropriate.
> 
> See
> http://drplokta.livejournal.com/109267.html
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg51874.html
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/discuss/current/msg01035.html
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05847.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2007/11/msg00029.html
> 
> Tony.
> -- 
> f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
> GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS.
> MODERATE OR GOOD.
> 
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
> the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email