On Nov 17, 2009, at 9:57 PM, Shane Amante wrote: >> Com'n Tony, that's a little disingenuous (unless you >> were strictly kidding and not just smirking there :-) > > I don't think he was, particularly in light of the vast majority of end-users > perception that regardless of whether DNS fails or IP connectivity to a Web > site fails the "Internet is down".
Yeah, I got that far :-) >> The point is that circular dependencies are bad, and a routing >> and forwarding substrate function that relies on DNS reachability >> isn't particularly desirable. > > One way to avoid this is to number the DNS and/or mapping system components > [exclusively] inside Locator space, thus there's no circular dependence on > getting _to_ a "mapping resolver". Thus, the routing system containing the > set of LOC's does not have a circular dependency ... I understood the distinction.. Perhaps not referring to it as "the DNS" would alleviate a great deal of confusion - and might even focus folks on more optimal mapping resolution mechanisms in the future (i.e., the current DNS is at least as broken as the routing system, methinks :-) -danny _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
