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

[Doug Barton <[e-mail]>]

On 02/18/2011 14:29, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> Now, today, people tend not to put DNAME on the parent side because it
> doesn't redirect the name itself.  But if we create this tool, it
> allows the parent side of the delegation effectively to _require_ that
> two names both be active; or at least, to force the child side of the
> delegation to handle the traffic from both "spellings".

Sure, that's possible. But I think it's very, very unlikely. As I said 
in my previous post registries today are giving registrants the option 
of whether to delegate the variants, I don't see this changing if we 
give them a new tool to use.

> So if you want to run your mailserver at example.com, and your parent
> decides that you ought also to handle otherexample.com, you're going
> to get that traffic even if you don't want it.  And this, of course,
> carries up the tree.

Ok, but even if this happens (which I think is unlikely), so what? If 
the mail server is not configured to handle otherexample the person 
sending mail there will get a bounce. That's only slightly more 
aggravating than having it not resolve at all.


Doug

-- 

	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/

_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext