IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Wed, 04 March 2009 15:36 UTC

Return-Path: <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
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 996123A6CBB for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 07:36:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.049
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.550, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 f8yZM0krvp14 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 07:36:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-0.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-0.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CACA3A6CB6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 07:36:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:44338) by ppsw-0.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.150]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1Let9w-0007j7-1S (Exim 4.70) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:37:24 +0000
Received: from fanf2 (helo=localhost) by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local-esmtp id 1Let9w-00029w-E3 (Exim 4.67) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:37:24 +0000
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:37:24 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] RFC 3484 section 6 rule 9 causing more operational problems
In-Reply-To: <20563.1236179832@nsa.vix.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.0903041531250.8701@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <alpine.LSU.2.00.0903041400220.8701@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <20563.1236179832@nsa.vix.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: Tony Finch <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
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 15:36:57 -0000

On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, Paul Vixie wrote:

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

Why is it right for topology-ignorant clients to override topology-aware
DNS servers based on wishful thinking about RIR address allocation
policies?

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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email