Paul Vixie wrote: >>> some number of vendors have depended on revenue from selling this >>> feature but i'd say that only a small number of sites ever saw any >>> benefit from it. >> pool.ntp.org, security.debian.org, rsync.gentoo.org, >> [a-o].ns.spamhaus.org, [a-n].surbl.org. In general the "large RRset" >> approach is used by those who do not buy special DNS appliance to serve >> their zones, I think. > > i'm not sure we're in the same discussion. pool.ntp.org is using short > ttl and silent truncation and round robin. there's no geo-ip stability > that could be hurt by client-side reordering or rerandomizing. and the > nameserver examples you gave are all subject to rdns RTT sorting. the > "large RRset" approach works just fine, and is not related to Rule 9. > pool.ntp.org divides itself up into subdomains (okay they are really hostnames) for each country-code so that you get addresses in that country code. NTP in the future will take advantage of the fact that it gets back multiple addresses and will use more than just one of them to find NTP servers. The order does not really matter and it's better that there be no particular order so that we do not overload any one server. Danny _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf