Hello Olivier,
Let me clarify.
I am not suggesting to reuse existing DNS servers at all. I am just
suggesting (well not even that .. trying to understand why this is bad
idea) to reuse existing DNS/DNSSEC code on completely opaque to the DNS
and DNS infrastructure deployment.
Effectively to fully follow LISP DDT principals however reused existing
DNS bind with all of the latest enhancements.
Best regards,
R.
Robert,
During wg meeting today all presentations LISP-DDT, LISP-DDT-SEC and
LISP-DDT Database Transfer stated that this is very much like DNS.
See also the original LISP-TREE paper for more details on the benefits
of such a mapping system
http://inl.info.ucl.ac.be/publications/lisp-tree-dns-hierarchy-support-lisp-mapping-system
Said this I would like to ask why not use new instance of DNS with
DNSSEC completely independent on current name resolution DNS here ?
It walks like a duck .. it quacks like a duck .. it must be a duck !
Defining new set of records and leveraging a lot of work which went into
(and still going) into DNS one could think would make a lot of sense
rather then reinventing the wheel.
If not .. if DDT approach can not be serviced by DNS architecture I
think it would be very useful to document why. Also in the same time it
would be great to announce plans for open source DDT support ?
One of the issues that I see in reusing the DNS is the LISP would have
to support the (very old) history of DNS and the various protocol
extensions. Bitlabel would seem the best way of encoding mappings, but
bitlabels have been deprecated http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3363 which
means that LISP could not simply reuse existing DNS servers. If there
are modifications required to the DNS, then seems more realistic to
avoid using an already overloaded protocol like the DNS.
Although I was initially in favor of reusing the DNS, I changed my mind...
Olivier
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
