Hi, > The problem in such discussions is "harm to whom?" The harm is that > is we incorrectly solve this, we harm the overall architecture of the > Internet. The issues I read pertained to the host, not the DNS, > hence, to prevent harm to the architecture, the solution lies in the > host.
I see this rather so that a network causing issues for the host ought to provide assistance for hosts to overcome those issues. > There are a number of problems with the question. One, split-DNS > isn't defined and that hinders talking about policies about its use. > Two, I don't understand "DNS server selection" as something that one > does. Three, split-DNS is a thing that usually is only introduced > where it is a solution to problems, if it was causing problems it > would be removed. >From 10000 feet view some DNS servers have information others do not. Isn't >that enough of high level definition of split-DNS? The DNS server selection is a mandatory feature for every host that receives more than 1 DNS server address from any sources. In simplest case it just means overwriting /etc/resolv.conf with the latest info received from anywhere.. There was a good email "two reasons to have split-DNS" by Mark Andrews last Friday. Won't those reasons remain valid reasons even in the presence of multihomed hosts, hence unlikely to disappear any time soon? Hence need to find a patch to the problem the solution caused. > And that is why there's no clear answer. There's no agreed > definition over split-DNS. Right, but doesn't split-DNS always mean some DNS servers have some information others do not? What other criteria of selecting a DNS server could be in addition to FQDN and IP-addresses (ranges, subnets)? Best regards, Teemu _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
