On 9 Nov 2023, at 12:12, John R Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > On Thu, 9 Nov 2023, Joe Abley wrote: >> I don't agree that it's impossible to use an anycast target for this, any >> more than it's impossible to distribute any service using anycast. > > I don't think it's impossible either, but it's swatting a fly with a > motorcycle. As far as I know the anycast mirrors do not feed stuff in > realtime back to their primaries and this would be quite a change, not to > mention needing non-standard hacks to their DNS servers. (That's "reverse > anycast".)
I think you're confusing implementation with architecture. >> As far as communication with registrars goes, the registry operator is >> actually ideally placed to relay general messages to registrars. I'm not >> sure why this is being discounted. They already do so for other purposes. > > At that other I* organization we were led to understand that registrars get > unhappy when the registry interacts directly with their customers. I have long assumed this to be the case too, but more recently conversations around this very topic suggest that I have been a bit narrow in my thinking. An automated channel to distribute a signal is perhaps different from a registrar's supplier meddling with the experience of the registrar's customer. > If we can get the registrars and registries to go for it, registry > forwarding is fine with me, but I don't think it would be a good idea to > specify it unless we are confident that people are willing to do it. To be honest I have my doubts that any of this is worth doing at all; I think it would be far better to forget about DNS-centric approaches and put effort instead into broadening the provisioning channels around domain registrations and management to incorporate DNS operators. If I'm right and none of this is going anywhere anyway, then we might as well be expansive in our design :-) Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
