Latest revision says:
--
Private namespaces MUST be globally unique in order to keep DNS
unambiguous and henceforth avoiding caching related issues and
destination selection problems (see Section 2.3). Exceptions to this
rule are domains utilized for local name resolution (such as .local).
Private namespaces MUST only consist of subdomains of domains for
which the relevant operator provides authoritative name service.
Thus, subdomains of example.com are permitted in the private
namespace served by an operator's DNS servers only if the same
operator provides an SOA record for example.com.
--
Doesn't that make DNS caches happy?
Teemu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext
> Keith Moore
> Sent: 17. marraskuuta 2011 13:41
> To: Ted Lemon
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [mif] Server selection document is "band-aid" not solution
>
>
> On Nov 17, 2011, at 12:34 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> > On Nov 17, 2011, at 1:26 PM, "Keith Moore" <moore@network-
> heretics.com> wrote:
> >> It's not just that. A fundamental design choice of DNS is that there is
> >> only
> one resolution context. Yes, it's not unusual for that design choice to be
> violated. But that still doesn't make it right for MIF to violate it.
> >
> > Do you mean only one namespace? It is not at all a fundamental
> assumption of the DNS that there is only one resolution context.
>
> Either I disagree, or we're talking about different things. But DNS cacheing
> assumes that the correct set of answers to a particular DNS query are the
> same independent of where the query came from. This isn't an
> implementation artifact, it's how DNS was designed to work.
>
> Keith
>
> _______________________________________________
> mif mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
