[dns-wg] NCC reverse delegation criteria

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 08:40:05PM +0200, Jonas Frey wrote:
> > The time window might be small, but serving wrong answers was not 
> > acceptable for us.
> 
> ok, but in the automated world of today this small window is likely to
> be _really_ small.

Only if everything works perfectly.  Especially "customer asks for
the auth records and then moves their delegation at some unspecified
point in time" is something you can only catch by regularily polling
the delegating servers - which we certainly could do (like "every 
5 seconds") - but today, we poll once a day, and are not in a hurry.


> > Can you explain why it would be desirable to *have* these unified?
> 
> 
> I do see 3 major benefits to combine/unify these:
> - "saving" IP addresses (depending of how many you run of course[1])
> - less effort managing (not having multiple places for configuration
> thus unifiying [automated] setup)
> - saving ressources (servers, virtual machines, whatever they run on)

Except for the "saving IP addresses" part I find this not overly
convincing - these things are different, and treating them as such
makes provisioning, monitoring, and sizing way easier.

And yeah, you can save like 2 IP addresses...  (two recursors, all those
addresses anycasted to as many instances as you need for scale anyway).

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/dns-wg/attachments/20190611/f3af0009/attachment.sig>