RV: [dns-wg] DNS migration draft

At 11:06 AM +0200 2004-09-17, Fernando Garcia quoted "Alvaro Vives" 
<alvaro.vives at consulintel.es>:

>>  1) In case of having IPv4 and IPv6 addresses for the DNS server
>>  of example.org domain, changing addresses in different moments could
>>  lead to reduce the blackout, at least for the dualstack user
>>  resolvers. For example:
>>
>>   example.org.  NS  A    10.1.2.3
>>                 NS  AAAA 2001:800:40:2a2f::1
>
>  IPv6 is one of the main items of my "to do" list for the meeting (not being
>  a big expert in IPv6). I will include your proposal in the presentation to
>  be discused/agreed (it seems fine to me)

	Sorry, this just hit me.

	Unfortunately, we don't use IP addresses in NS records.  We use 
domainnames.  Try this instead:

	example.org.	NS	ns1.example.org.
	ns1.example.org.	A    10.1.2.3
						AAAA 2001:800:40:2a2f::1


>  - The same equipment with to IP address/interfaces. Everything will follow
>  the default route regardless of the source IP routing and A) packets wont
>  follow best route B) could be filtered by anti spoofing filters.

	Well, if the routes are via different providers, and the network 
administrator ensures that the incoming and outgoing packets are 
routed via the appropriate provider, I don't see what the problem is. 
You can always have sub-optimal routing, that's just something you 
have to live with.  Otherwise, BIND is good at knowing which 
interface a given query came in on, and making sure that the reply 
goes back out on the same interface.  So, there shouldn't be any 
filtering problems, at least not any more than you could potentially 
run into anyway.

	And I don't see any reason to use any of the other methods, regardless.


	The only issue I see here is that the delegation data won't match 
the in-zone data for these hostnames, unless you make changes at your 
registrar.  Of course, some registrars may limit the number of known 
IP addresses for a given host/domain name, so you may have to decide 
how you want to deal with that problem.

>  -PROs: avoid installing a temporary machine
>  -CONs: Two changes in the NIC in place of one.
>  I prefer one change in the NIC (I am really, really afraid of some NICs
>  working methods) and use your solution if no duplicate server is possible.
>  We can discuss it, of course.

	I think you have the problem of multiple changes at the registrar 
no matter what.

-- 
Brad Knowles, <brad at stop.mail-abuse.org>

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

     -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
     Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755

   SAGE member since 1995.  See <http://www.sage.org/> for more info.