I'm forwarding a mail from Xun as he mistakenly send it not to
the list but to me.
Masataka Ohta
-------- Original Message --------
Quoting Masataka Ohta <[email protected]>:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > One result of that work is that we think additional information
> > would make anycast dianosis much easier---
>
> How can it be made much easier?
>
> All the anycast servers should have unicast addresses to be
> used for zone transfer, which can be used for most, if not all,
> diagnostics.
>
> So, what diagnosis, are you considering, becomes possible
> only by your proposal?
I think the initial e-mail text we sent is short and incomplete,
our draft proposal is clearer.
The particular diagnostic that our
proposal tries to provide is to tell which one of a set of
anycast servers responses to a DNS query. Unicast address of an
anycast server is very useful for many diagnostics, however, as
DNS queries is sent to the anycast address and the path is decided
by routing system, knowing the set of unicast address may not
sufficient to answer that question.
For the diagnosis that becomes possible ONLY by our proposal,
to our knowledge, is the identification of anycast nodes in
catchments other than where the querier is currently located.
One example utility might be to tell which authoritative name
server provides answers to a recursive name server.
>
> Also, I'm afraid a fantastic idea of "anycast node" of
> RFC4892 is a result of broken specification of IPv6 anycast
> (yes, IPv6 is broken in several ways), which assumes there
> should be more than one anycast servers sharing an anycast
> address on a link. Anyway, we can't discuss anything
> meaningful about "anycast node", because its definition
> is too fuzzy.
I am not sure if I correctly understand your statement. Did
you mean multiple anycast servers sharing a same path is only
for IPv6? If so, I don't agree. We know that at least F root
has multiple anycast servers in a site (which we think has
same meaning to RFC4786 defined "anycast node") for
address 192.5.5.241. And I believe a load-balancing mechanism
is reasonable for anycasted authoritative name servers. So
"anycast node" should not be discarded at this time.
>
> As the terminology is very confusing with "node" of domain
> tree and "node" of IPv6, the entire idea of "anycast node"
> should better be silently ignored.
>
> Masataka Ohta
>
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
