The trouble with "split horizon" is that it is a term of inter-network routing
of much older and more-established provenance, and thus to use it for DNS can
be viewed as a usurpation, and ultimately, confusing. (I know Cricket had the
same observation, circa 2000).
I occasionally use "schizophrenic DNS" when I want to disparage the practice,
but I realize that is both a) inaccurate, from a clinical standpoint, and b)
politically incorrect, in some circles.
How about just "disjoint DNS" or "non-synchronized DNS"? Or, to hijack the Perl
motto, TMTOWTRI (There's More Than One Way To Resolve It :-)
- Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: DNSOP [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Vixie
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 1:55 PM
To: Paul Hoffman <[email protected]>
Cc: dnsop <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Terminology question: split DNS
Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Some folks had reservations about the current definition of "split
> DNS": "Where a corporate network serves up partly or completely
> different DNS inside and outside its firewall. There are many possible
> variants on this; the basic point is that the correspondence between a
> given FQDN (fully qualified domain name) and a given IPv4 address is
> no longer universal and stable over long periods." (Quoted from <xref
> target="RFC2775"/>, Section 3.8)
>
> What would the WG like for this definition?
my only qualm is that A and AAAA RR's are not the only things that are usually
not the same when DNS is split in this way. MX, NS, SRV, and likely a dozen
others, and DNSSEC signatures and keys, can also differ.
it should be called split-horizon DNS not split-DNS, to highlight the fact that
it's the same zone name in an entirely separate DNS namespace.
--
P Vixie
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
