RV: [dns-wg] DNS migration draft

Hello Brad

On 17/9/04 15:57, "Brad Knowles" <brad at stop.mail-abuse.org> wrote:

> 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

Good point. I take note.

> 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.

I was not only thinking about DNS but all the other servers that must be
migrated AND this document should not be BIND centered (though the examples
use bind). I'm not sure about how the DNS server for Windows work, but let
me be a little suspicious.

The problem in your phrase is "network administrator ensures.. Outgoing
packets are routed via the appropiate provider", this usually means "source
routing" (I can paint many scenarios with this meaning), a not so simple
task and the person -network administrator- that will use this document (I
hope) is not a very qualified technician, if she/he is qualified, she/he
wouldn't need this document.

> 
> 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.

Its a problem, so the less changes, the better. Do you agree with this
statement?

Regards, Fernando
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Fernando Garcia - fgarcia at eurocomercial.es
Eurocomercial Informática y Comunicaciones
91 435 96 87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--