Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9

Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> Mon, 02 June 2008 06:59 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35B583A6BFD; Sun, 1 Jun 2008 23:59:27 -0700 (PDT)
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 478AF3A6BF8 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Jun 2008 23:59:26 -0700 (PDT)
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=[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 hIKaEiQTR4IK for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Jun 2008 23:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from netcore.fi (eunet-gw.ipv6.netcore.fi [IPv6:2001:670:86:3001::1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 388473A689D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Jun 2008 23:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from netcore.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by netcore.fi (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m526xIk3013413; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 09:59:18 +0300
Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) with ESMTP id m526xF1S013409; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 09:59:18 +0300
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 09:59:15 +0300
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org>
Subject: Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9
In-Reply-To: <200806020456.m524ueYb080876@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.1.10.0806020957480.12260@netcore.fi>
References: <200806020456.m524ueYb080876@drugs.dv.isc.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LRH 962 2008-03-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.93/6816/Fri Apr 18 03:41:09 2008 on otso.netcore.fi
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Cc: 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/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Mark Andrews wrote:
> 	This rule should not exist for IPv4 or IPv6.  Longest match
> 	does not make a good sorting critera for destination address
> 	selection.  In fact it has the opposite effect by concentrating
> 	traffic on particular address rather than spreading load.
>
> 	I received a request today asking us to break up DNS RRsets
> 	as a workaround to the rule.    Can we please get a errata
> 	entry for RFC 3484 stating that this rule needs to be ignored.

I doubt that. Errata seems like a wrong place to revisit WG decisions.

(I take no stance on the issue itself.)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf