Nifty idea, as a dns operator that would make it easy for us :) Having said that, dns is useful as a common point of reference to help explain ddt but has significant enough differences (and the joy of dodging legacy baggage) to make a separate protocol a sensible option.
----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Raszuk [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 03:51 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [lisp] DDT vs DNS Hi, During wg meeting today all presentations LISP-DDT, LISP-DDT-SEC and LISP-DDT Database Transfer stated that this is very much like DNS. Likewise the drafts say it too: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fuller-lisp-ddt-00 Conceptually, this is similar to the way that a client of the Domain Name System (DNS) follows referrals (DNS responses that contain only NS records) from a series of DNS servers until it finds an answer. http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wiley-lisp-ddtxfer-01.txt Think of a LISP-DDT query as the analog to a DNS name server (NS) query, and a LISP map request as the analog to a DNS address (A) query (LISP-DDT does not store the EID to RLOC mappings returned in a map request). 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 ? Many thx, R. _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
