On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:57 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 05:11:47PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote: > > > > i disagree. dns-based load balancing is an unfortunate overloading > and > > > > should never be done. RFC 3484 is correct as it is. > > > > > > Why is it right for topology-ignorant clients to override > topology-aware > > > DNS servers based on wishful thinking about RIR address allocation > > > policies? > > > > neither a client or a server can be guaranteed topology-aware. dns > leaves > > ordering deliberately undefined and encourages applications to use their > > own best judgement. > > > > DNSSEC does reorder RRSets within a zone. Which is a new feature. When we started talking about order of RRSets? This is purely discussion about order of RRs in RRSet. Order of RRSets in zone is irrelevant before DNSSEC and also after DNSSEC. Nothing depends on order of RRSets at least in my best knowledge. Ondrej. -- Ondrej Sury technicky reditel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Americka 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic mailto:[email protected] http://nic.cz/ sip:[email protected] <sip%[email protected]> tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 -----------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
