On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:57 PM, <bmanning@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
When we started talking about order of RRSets? This is purely discussion
about order of RRs in RRSet. Order of RRSets in zone is irrelevant before
DNSSEC and also after DNSSEC. Nothing depends on order of RRSets
at least in my best knowledge.
Ondrej.On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 05:11:47PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:DNSSEC does reorder RRSets within a zone. Which is a new feature.
> > > i disagree. dns-based load balancing is an unfortunate overloading and
> > > should never be done. RFC 3484 is correct as it is.
> >
> > Why is it right for topology-ignorant clients to override topology-aware
> > DNS servers based on wishful thinking about RIR address allocation
> > policies?
>
> neither a client or a server can be guaranteed topology-aware. dns leaves
> ordering deliberately undefined and encourages applications to use their
> own best judgement.
>
When we started talking about order of RRSets? This is purely discussion
about order of RRs in RRSet. Order of RRSets in zone is irrelevant before
DNSSEC and also after DNSSEC. Nothing depends on order of RRSets
at least in my best knowledge.
--
Ondrej Sury
technicky reditel/Chief Technical Officer
-----------------------------------------
CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry
Americka 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic
mailto:ondrej.sury@xxxxxx http://nic.cz/
sip:ondrej.sury@xxxxxx tel:+420.222745110
mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112
-----------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf