* Dean Anderson: > I think it is well known that Round robin DNS load balancing is not a > guaranteed behavior. The "severe operational problems" from its > non-support are the fault of unreasonable reliance on insufficient > testing and insufficient analysis of the requirements of DNS resolvers. > I think the solution here is to get better engineers who read rather > than assume.
Huh? If I understand you correctly, you're saying that it's not worth fixing the RFC, even if its guidelines seem to cause practical problems -- because knowledgeable folks will ignore it anyway. > This is not a DNS operational issue. Maybe, but which non-IPv6 WG concerns itself with resolver behavior? > But as a protocol/resolver specification issue, I'd have to say that I > think sorting or randomization should be site specific. Most of the > time, giving the closest address prefix first, followed by next closest > prefix is the right choice, as it has the best chance of localizing > traffic. Doesn't seem to be the case anymore--these days, hardly any services reside on the same network as the clients. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
