Re: [DNSOP] I-D ACTION:draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns-04.txt
Hi, I have updated distributed DNS implementation in Ipv6. Please give your comments. Thanks. Dr. Lican Huang From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns-04.txt Date:Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:45:01 -0700 (PDT) A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Distributed DNS Implementation in IpV6 Author(s) : L. Huang Filename: draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns-04.txt Pages : 17 Date: 2008-6-23 This file is a proposal for P2P based Domain Name query stratagy in IpV6. The DNS servers construct n-tuple overlay virtual hierarchical overlay network. With cached addresses of DNS servers, the overload of traffic in tree structure can be avoided. This strategy may use for Domain Name query and reverse Domain Name query in IpV6 for a large number of domain names. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns-04.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] I-D ACTION:draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns-04.txt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (黄理灿) writes: Hi, I have updated distributed DNS implementation in Ipv6. Please give your comments. Thanks. Dr. Lican Huang thank you for your work on this. i find no support for this assertion: 1. Introduction Although DNS becomes a vital component in today's Internet infrastructure, the existing DNS architecture will encounter problems in the future for the growth of the Internet. ... DNS implementation currently used may encounter overload traffic in root DNS servers. ... therefore while i find your proposed solution to be of high quality, there is a cost in overall system complexity for adding a virtual routing layer to the DNS, which would have to be justified by a much more complete problem statement and an objective analysis of more than one alternative. -- Paul Vixie ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] I-D ACTION:draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns-04.txt
Paul Vixie (vixie) writes: therefore while i find your proposed solution to be of high quality, there is a cost in overall system complexity for adding a virtual routing layer to the DNS, which would have to be justified by a much more complete problem statement and an objective analysis of more than one alternative. I would put it much more concisely: this is a solution looking for a problem. Phil ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] I-D ACTION:draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns-04.txt
Paul Vixie (vixie) writes: therefore while i find your proposed solution to be of high quality, there is a cost in overall system complexity for adding a virtual routing layer to the DNS, which would have to be justified by a much more complete problem statement and an objective analysis of more than one alternative. like Paul, i'm not commenting on the specific technical value of the draft. i haven't read the updated version of the draft. however, when i read the previous version, i remember that to be practical it requires a greenfield implementation or would have to be represented in a dns system other than the one common root system used on the internet. almost as if it could just as easily be an entirely standalone namemapping system instead of DNS. also, as i recall when this draft was discussed before: 1) On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 07:52:50PM +0200, Phil Regnauld wrote: I would put it much more concisely: this is a solution looking for a problem. 2) this draft seemed to be the result of some thesis project in the p2p space that aimed to solve the thesis problems by changing dns rather than solving the problems by utilizing dns 3) there was much assumption and conclusions that weren't anywhere near consensus. at minimum there existed so many empty phrases (IPv6 is large) as to hide value that could be taken away and reorganized into a draft that this WG could do something with, if we had a problem this draft could address. i'll try and find time to read the new version to see if anything changed, but based on the last draft, i don't think this should be a WG priority or work-item without first a problem statement that we can all agree on. -- bill ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] I-D ACTION:draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns-04.txt
Dr. Lican Huang It is perfectly clear now that the current IPv6 Root DNS architecture is deeply flawed. It is strange that Paul Vixie asserts that there are no future load problems, since Paul Vixie has previously asserted that DNS Anycast is a solution to these future load problems. RFC1546 states, and it has been experimentally demonstrated that Anycast doesn't work for TCP connections. Recent discussion on NANOG has shown that operators were under the mistaken impression that only AXFR uses TCP, and that ordinary DNS queries are never performed over TCP. Perhaps this explains why they think that DNS Anycast might be stable when TCP Anycast is not stable; it seems they think (incorrectly) that DNS only uses UDP. Furthermore, in support of Dr. Lican Huang premise: As IPv6 records are added to already limited priming and NS responses at the expense of IPv4 servers, IPv4 stability is reduced. Any reduction in the number of IPv4 servers in these responses imposes stability problems on the respective IPv4 root, TLD, and other Domains. On the other hand, adding fewer IPv6 nameservers in NS and priming responses similarly compromises IPv6 DNS stability. This is a hobbsian choice. This choice is only imposed because of the mixing IPv6 and IPv4 records on the same set of root and DNS servers. There is no need or requirement for such mixing. Using entirely separate IPv4 and IPv6 resolvers avoids the hobbsian choice caused by the mixing. So, I think that a complete set of IPv6 root nameservers should be created, and that the scalability solution proposed by Dr. Lican Huang should be seriously considered as a solution to the scalability problems already experienced in IPv4, so that IPv6 DNS over TCP can be handled reliably. --Dean On 24 Jun 2008, Paul Vixie wrote: thank you for your work on this. i find no support for this assertion: 1. Introduction Although DNS becomes a vital component in today's Internet infrastructure, the existing DNS architecture will encounter problems in the future for the growth of the Internet. ... DNS implementation currently used may encounter overload traffic in root DNS servers. ... therefore while i find your proposed solution to be of high quality, there is a cost in overall system complexity for adding a virtual routing layer to the DNS, which would have to be justified by a much more complete problem statement and an objective analysis of more than one alternative. -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
