Re: Comments surrounding draft-iab-dns-applications-01

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

 





On 7/5/2011 3:56 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
Mark Andrews<marka@xxxxxxx>  wrote:
DNS[WB]L's have never been a good fit to the DNS, rather they have
not been a bad enough fit to require something better to be done.

Oh come off it, they are just as good a fit to the DNS as reverse DNS is.

The naive approach of reversing the address, converting to nibbles
and appending a suffix won't scale.

I don't understand why the setup is OK for reverse DNS but not blacklists.


+1

This has been an on-going issue, with a kind of 'purity' argument from some folk. While concern for the stability of end-to-end DNS operations certainly is essential, the degree of resistance to these added uses of the service often is, indeed, inconsistent.

In general, the problematic logic requires a devotion to the narrow usage that has dominated the DNS, rather than what the design of DNS was intended to support. (Reading the original RFCs is instructive for this broader view.)

However for the current thread, there really does appear to be an impending problem. It seems pretty clear that DNS caching needs to be tailored to the types of applications making the queries and that mixed traffic could well mess with caching behavior. (I think it uncontroversial to note that that having DNS caching functioning well is an important requirement for stable and efficient DNS use.)

For an application that is likely to encounter a different IP address for essentially every query, across a very large number of queries, the only solution I see available is to use a different cache.

d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
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]