> On 8 Feb 2019, at 12:53 pm, Joe Abley <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Ohta-san,
> 
> On 7 Feb 2019, at 18:28, Masataka Ohta <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Petr Spacek wrote:
>> 
>>>    5. At least one NS RR must be present at the top of the zone.
>> 
>> At least two.
> 
> With respect, I think the protocol requirement is at least one, not at least 
> two.
> 
> I think best current practice is to avoid single-points of failure with the 
> set of servers used to provide authoritative answers, and I agree that in 
> many cases this is codified in user interfaces and registry policy as 
> requiring two NS RRs. However, there is no shortage of such multiple RRs that 
> refer to a single subnet or even a single instance of a nameserver process 
> (so "at least two" is sometimes insufficient), and its perfectly possible to 
> use anycast or both A and AAAA RRs attached to a single nameserver name that 
> provide useful much more useful diversity than those degenerate two-NS 
> implementations (so "just one" could in some circumstances be adequate).

A single anycast server DOES NOT and never can provide diversity from the 
client’s perspective.
Additionally multiple servers in the same /24 (IPv4) or same /48 (IPv6) should 
be treated as a
single server for diversity testing as these are accepted longest accepted 
prefixes.

> RFC 7108 describes the implementation of a method that includes a single 
> point-of-failure by design (see discussion of IDENTITY.L.ROOT-SERVERS.ORG in 
> section 5).
> 
> In short, this is an operational question with multiple answers and I don't 
> like the idea of formalising an over-simplistic restriction in the protocol 
> specification.
> 
> 
> Joe
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: [email protected]

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to