Re: Something better than DNS?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



My research group, as well as everyone who currently uses PlanetLab (and
presumably the future GENI platform, if it comes to pass) faces a
different deployment scenario than what the operational folks are used
to. Setting up anycast might be possible, but is operationally very very
difficult for lots of (partly non-technical, partly technical) reasons.
Hence the genuine question on where the limit stemmed from.

> >A quick question: Right now, we'd like to have a domain delegated to a
> >large number (say 100+) of nameservers. The registrars we have gone
> 
> The terminology used here indicates a need for a deeper understanding of DNS.

My terminology is correct, and your message is a simple ad hominem. You
should point out the error if there is one, and demonstrate how it
translates to a lack of understanding. Earlier in the thread, I
addressed people who claim to understand distributed systems, who could
not properly define the term "Byzantine," and we did not stoop to this
level. Someone with a spine would offer an explanation or an apology,
but I'm not holding my breath on either count :-). 

SB>I suspect that he is deliberately trolling, in order to prove a point
SB>(that DNS is too limited to handle domains who need a lot of
SB>reliability).

Stephane, I say enough controversial things as it is that you can
(perhaps?) argue over what I actually said, instead of making up random
and wildly inaccurate stuff. I don't believe "DNS" is too limited. The
wire format is very flexible.

> Your parenthetical comment is contrary to one of the most important 
> principles in the DNS, coherency.  Especially high up in the 
> hierarchy.  

Did you make this principle up or is it enunciated somewhere? There are
lots of places where it is violated.

> Of course, the 13 name limit does not limit you to 13 name servers. 
> With anycast, the number can be unbounded subject to the concerns 
> with routing.  

I asked because global anycast is not always feasible, esp. when the
hosts have already assigned IPs, and it is not easy to assign new IP
addresses to them.

> And if you add in load balancers you can have even 
> more servers.  

This spreads the load within a point of presence, but won't improve
service by expanding the bottleneck prior to the balancer.

Gun.



_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]