IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org> Thu, 05 March 2009 19:03 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 545063A6A2B for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 11:03:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.606
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.606 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.007, 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 9WPrs8L7Z+JJ for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 11:03:13 -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 8E0AB28C3E1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 11:02:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nsa.vix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nsa.vix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A601FA1042; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 19:03:17 +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 "Thu, 05 Mar 2009 18:07:35 GMT." <alpine.LSU.2.00.0903051802270.8701@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> <alpine.LSU.2.00.0903051333450.8701@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <93444.1236276110@nsa.vix.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.0903051802270.8701@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.1; nil; GNU Emacs 22.2.1
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 19:03:17 +0000
Message-ID: <96526.1236279797@nsa.vix.com>
Sender: vixie@vix.com
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 10:22:46 -0800
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 19:03:14 -0000

> > so the policy you're arguing for is that clients should always randomize?
> 
> When the client has topology information it should follow that (i.e. rules
> 1 - 8). When it doesn't have topology information it should use the order
> it gets from the DNS (i.e. rule 10, and historical practice). This lets
> the client's recursive server do whatever it thinks is sensible with the
> RRset, which is usually round-robin balancing.

i can live with that.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email