Re: [dnsext] we need help to make names the same, was draft-yao-dnsext-identical-resolution-02 comment

["John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>]

> However, except in the cases of combinatorial explosion, manual 
> provisioning would seem to be far simpler.

I think you will find that combinatorial explosion is the norm, not the 
exception, in cases where you want multiple names to be equivalent. Or if 
it's not the rule, it is common enough that any attempted solution that 
doesn't handle large sets of equivalent names isn't good enough to be 
worth doing.

I also have a general dislike of any design that requires two things to be 
kept in sync manually, with random failures if they're not.  If a set of 
names really is all equivalent, wouldn't it be better in the long run for 
people to configure the set once rather than once per server?

Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext