IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Thu, 05 March 2009 12:05 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.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 5AEE63A6971 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 04:05:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
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 yYXa4VY4--mI for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 04:05:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102:21e:c9ff:fe2e:e915]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A5803A6923 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 04:05:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost.ecs.soton.ac.uk [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n24EXYCD014995; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 14:33:34 GMT
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP id l23EXY0955044897Bi ret-id none; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:33:34 +0000
Received: from login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (login.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102:230:48ff:fe59:5f12]) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n24EXQtG002185 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 4 Mar 2009 14:33:26 GMT
Received: from login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.11.6) with ESMTP id n24EXQmY028811; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 14:33:26 GMT
Received: (from tjc@localhost) by login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id n24EXQov028810; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 14:33:26 GMT
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:33:26 +0000
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Subject: Re: RFC 3484 section 6 rule 9 causing more operational problems
Message-ID: <20090304143326.GM23824@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Mail-Followup-To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>, ietf@ietf.org, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
References: <alpine.LSU.2.00.0903041400220.8701@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.0903041400220.8701@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: client=relay,white,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: n24EXYCD014995
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.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: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 12:05:19 -0000

On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 02:09:22PM +0000, Tony Finch wrote:
> 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

The issue is mentioned in:

http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-arifumi-6man-rfc3484-revise-00.txt

"2.5.  To disable or restrict RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9

   There was a discussion at v6ops and ietf@ietf.org mailing lists that
   the rule 9 of the destination address selection has a serious adverse
   effect on the round robin DNS technique...."

However the above has expired.  Perhaps Arifumi will issue a new version
before the upcoming cutoff.

-- 
Tim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email