Re: [Resolverless-dns] Load-balancing concerns

>
> > 2) small single-datacenter services won't produce enough traffic to
> matter
>
> I think maybe we shouldn't be cavalier with "to matter", because
> it could very well matter quite a lot to the clients here.
>

Point well taken. I think my definition of small was a bit
self-referential.  (E.g. small defined as won't produce a heavy load.) But
I realize now that there are other reasons beyond load-balancing for
wanting to have traffic sent to a particular geographic location.  That
brings me back to the idea of opt-out or constraints.

Are there any minimum use cases that haven't been proposed?
What about if the DNSSEC-signed records have to include the ip serving the
push? That would suggest that the RRSET might be appropriate for the
client. (An obvious exception: an anycast IP signed with a bunch of unicast
ones.)

Justin Henck
Product Manager
212-565-9811
google.com/jigsaw

PGP: EA8E 8C27 2D75 974D B357 482B 1039 9F2D 869A 117B

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 4:44 PM Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org> wrote:

> Justin Henck writes:
> > How is a "resolverless" (unrequested resolution?) solution here any
> > different from sharing a recursive, if we use ECS or if the primary
> > service is widely deployed?
>
> The landscape is complicated.  In many cases it will offer the same
> results.  In some cases it will be demonstrably more bad.  In some
> cases it might even be a bit better.    There are a lot of variables
> to suss out here.
>
> > E.g. it seems to me that there are three scenarios:
> > 1) really large globally distributed services implementing will act like
> > geographicaply distributed resolvers, which some of them also are
>
> Right this one probably ends up looking largely like a regular
> recursive resolver now, so is basically fine.
>
> > 2) small single-datacenter services won't produce enough traffic to
> matter
>
> I think maybe we shouldn't be cavalier with "to matter", because
> it could very well matter quite a lot to the clients here.
>
> > 3) large single-datacenter services might cause a problem
>
> Yep.
>
> > Are there other negative scenarios? I suppose 1 but not very well
> > distributed?
>
> Yep,
>
> --
> Resolverless-dns mailing list
> Resolverless-dns@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/resolverless-dns
>