On May 7, 2014, at 10:23 AM, P Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote: > Joe... To clarify... Client subnet is not what I an complaining about. It's > wide area rdns itself that I think is a bad idea. One reason wide area rdns > is a bad idea is that it needs client subnet options. > > Centralized rdns is not necessary and it makes the internet brittle. Better > alternatives exist. The architecture of DNS assumes localized rdns. If we're > going to document client subnet then all that advice will have to go into it.
Not necessarily. "centralized" is often really "anycast". E.g. if you look at Comcast there are multiple anycast responders in their own internal network for 75.75.75.75. Likewise, '8.8.8.8' is insanely anycasted. This is not brittle, but remarkably robust. In this case, still, edns client subnet is very useful. It is, frankly, a mess to map "client subnet to recursive resolver", but it is an insanely powerful optimization when you can. edns_client_subnet makes this mapping trivial, and therefore acts to significantly improve end user performance. -- Nicholas Weaver it is a tale, told by an idiot, nwea...@icsi.berkeley.edu full of sound and fury, 510-666-2903 .signifying nothing PGP: http://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~nweaver/data/nweaver_pub.asc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
