Re: [mif] [dhcwg] [dnsext] [DNSOP] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document

Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> Tue, 25 October 2011 00:31 UTC

Return-Path: <jhutz@cmu.edu>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0D9511E811A; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:31:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.349
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.350, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zOcHNyVP3ERV; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:31:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp01.srv.cs.cmu.edu (SMTP01.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.217.196]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E8BC11E80DB; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:31:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [66.233.146.161] (66-233-146-161.pit.clearwire-wmx.net [66.233.146.161] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp01.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p9P0VWE5010357 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:31:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu>
To: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
In-Reply-To: <23284_1319373366_p9NCa52k028390_4EA30EB0.6080605@dougbarton.us>
References: <COL118-W55403198A984BAAE44BA47B1F70@phx.gbl> <916CE6CF87173740BC8A2CE44309696203782D75@008-AM1MPN1-037.mgdnok.nokia.com> <121DABD1-65E8-4275-8471-9FA38D25C434@nominet.org.uk> <916CE6CF87173740BC8A2CE44309696203783EE0@008-AM1MPN1-037.mgdnok.nokia.com> <4EA09791.8010705@gmail.com> <C8398996-79B5-437E-82A5-6B869ECF8F4E@network-heretics.com> <94C2E518-F34F-49E4-B15C-2CCCFAA96667@virtualized.org> <12477381-9F74-4C50-B576-47EE4322F6BC@network-heretics.com> <CAH1iCiqsN-R87VK3vKityPsY+NXA=0DRASYf_vmBSy8gvYwHdQ@mail.gmail.com> <916CE6CF87173740BC8A2CE44309696203784B27@008-AM1MPN1-037.mgdnok.nokia.com> <708F3212-3C9C-4B61-AA77-EFA8F1CA5B04@nominum.com> <30B1AE01-0A35-48D2-91AF-46FC8B60466C@network-heretics.com> <23284_1319373366_p9NCa52k028390_4EA30EB0.6080605@dougbarton.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:30:53 -0400
Message-ID: <1319502653.28149.572.camel@destiny.pc.cs.cmu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: mimedefang-cmuscs on 128.2.217.196
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:24:55 -0700
Cc: "<mif@ietf.org>" <mif@ietf.org>, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, "<dnsop@ietf.org>" <dnsop@ietf.org>, "<dnsext@ietf.org>" <dnsext@ietf.org>, "<pk@isoc.de>" <pk@isoc.de>, "<dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "<denghui02@hotmail.com>" <denghui02@hotmail.com>, jhutz@cmu.edu
Subject: Re: [mif] [dhcwg] [dnsext] [DNSOP] 2nd Last Call for MIF DNS server selection document
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:31:40 -0000

On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 11:42 -0700, Doug Barton wrote:

> In regards to 3, let's say I have a domain, example.org. In my network I
> have various subdomains that represent various network segments, let's
> say foo, bar, and baz. Personally, I find it convenient to put
> 'example.com' in the search list for all of my hosts, and then type 'ssh
> host.bar' and go off on my merry way. Yes, I understand that in my
> simple example I could theoretically put all 3 subdomains in the search
> list. Now assume that my network isn't actually that simple ...

For example, suppose that each of foo, bar, and baz in turn has a number
of subdomains, and that the total number of such 4th-level domains is
over 250.  Now, imagine that major resolver implementations limit the
search list to a total of 6 domains...