[dns-wg] TLD delegation trade-offs
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] TLD delegation trade-offs
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] TLD delegation trade-offs
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Roy Arends
roy at dnss.ec
Tue Jun 7 10:30:28 CEST 2005
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Mohsen Souissi wrote: > Bill & all, > > On 07 Jun, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > | > of wasteful usage of IPv4 address space: the /8s that Stanford and MIT > | > have for instance. > | > | er... MIT & MERIT... stanford returned theirs years ago... > | > | now if i understood Ed, both he and you are tangentially > | arguing for in-baliwick glue. why was this considered such > | bad practice last decade, but now seems to be not only > | prefered but the only choice for right-thinking people? > > ==> I don't think anybody expressed the "in-baliwick glue" as "the > only choice for right-thinking people" nor do I think that anybody was > trying to show people how to "right-think" about NS's naming for a > TLD delegation... > > The name compression technique which maybe was considered as "a bad > practice" a decade ago has become more popular for the last 3-5 > years. Btw I don't think this technique is "outdated" today as Ed said > since the alternative he mentioned (Anycast) is not widely deployed > yet by TLDs (only a few TLDs are anycast today and still some > political and technical issues to be solved... Just think for instance > at IPv6 allocation policy which does't allow yet TLDs in the RIPE > region to get an "unfiltered" block... Yes I know, a new proposal is > underway to be adopted by the RIPE address-policy wg...). IMHO, the > name compression popularity relies on two facts today: > > - it addresses and mitigates new technical issues which didn't use to > occurr frequently a decade ago, such as riskk of glue dropping due > to new "greedy" RRs such as AAAA or DNSSEC-related RRs. So > compression may save a large amount of bytes which may be > transformed in a new NS deployment (icluding its A/AAAA glues); > > - TLDs which are not yet deploying DNS anycast are endeavouring to get > a suitable level of redundancy and load distribution among their > deployed NS's. As the number of deployed NS's grows, it becomes very > practical and interesting to have a naming plan easing the > readability and consequently the operation of name service... > > Hence, it is seen by a number of TLDs today that name compression is a > good and workable technique, in the absence of a better technique (yet > to be easily deployable)... Just my .02 euro: Using glue (or to use a redundant term: in-bailiwick glue) helps to avoid dependency loops as well. ie: example.com nameservers exist under example.net and vice versa. IMHO a good thing. Roy
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] TLD delegation trade-offs
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] TLD delegation trade-offs
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ dns-wg Archives ]