Re: RFC 3484 section 6 rule 9 causing more operational problems

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

 



On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 02:09:22PM +0000, Tony Finch wrote:
> It seems that Vista implements RFC 3484 address selection, including the
> requirement to sort IP addresses. This breaks a great deal of operational
> dependence on DNS-based load balancing, as well as being based on an
> incorrect understanding of how IP addresses are allocated.
> 
> RFC 3484 needs to be updated to delete this rule, so that the order
> returned from the DNS is honoured when the client has no better knowledge
> about which address is appropriate.
> 
> See
> http://drplokta.livejournal.com/109267.html
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg51874.html
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/discuss/current/msg01035.html
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05847.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2007/11/msg00029.html

The issue is mentioned in:

http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-arifumi-6man-rfc3484-revise-00.txt

"2.5.  To disable or restrict RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9

   There was a discussion at v6ops and ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists that
   the rule 9 of the destination address selection has a serious adverse
   effect on the round robin DNS technique...."

However the above has expired.  Perhaps Arifumi will issue a new version
before the upcoming cutoff.

-- 
Tim


_______________________________________________

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

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