IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Thu, 05 March 2009 13:34 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 E432428C1F6 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 05:34:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.869
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.869 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.730, 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 4+XeCdlQv81I for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 05:34:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-7.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-7.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.137]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FA2B3A6971 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 05:34:09 -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]:43433) by ppsw-7.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.157]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1LfDif-0000mK-Nx (Exim 4.70) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:34:37 +0000
Received: from fanf2 (helo=localhost) by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local-esmtp id 1LfDif-0006PC-DJ (Exim 4.67) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:34:37 +0000
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:34:37 +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: <41007.1236204089@nsa.vix.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.0903051333450.8701@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <alpine.LSU.2.00.0903041400220.8701@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <20563.1236179832@nsa.vix.com> <e90946380903040805v15ad9e7dv92491667cd1f7656@mail.gmail.com> <36372.1236198273@nsa.vix.com> <e90946380903041229x2ce61e85p54ee9bed71acd431@mail.gmail.com> <41007.1236204089@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, Ondřej Surý <ondrej.sury@nic.cz>, 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: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:34:11 -0000

On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, Paul Vixie wrote:

> only in the case where the server is depending on rr ordering within
> rrsets, which dns has never guaranteed and which many caches (both rdns
> and stubs) randomize or reorder anyway, and where the server's
> imputation of topology knows about every private interconnect that may
> affect client performance, would RFC 3484 do harm.

No, it does harm when the servers are depending on RRsets being DISordered.

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