Xun wrote:
So, what diagnosis, are you considering, becomes possible
only by your proposal?
The particular diagnostic that our
proposal tries to provide is to tell which one of a set of
anycast servers responses to a DNS query.
It's a reception by a hospital clerk rather than a diagnosis
On Tuesday, September 27, 2011 09:49:03 am Masataka Ohta wrote:
Xun wrote:
Unicast address of an
anycast server is very useful for many diagnostics, however, as
DNS queries is sent to the anycast address and the path is decided
by routing system, knowing the set of unicast address may not
Paul Vixie wrote:
That is an issue better handled by IP layer.
The purpose I see in this proposal, that cannot be handled by the IP layer, is
to tell me which anycast instance is seen by some recursive name server. All
our current diagnostics rely on contacting the server itself to see
A noble idea, but alas not terribly useful.
If this were available, we'd disable it in anything we deploy nor
build it into our code base.
At 11:26 -0700 9/25/11, xun...@isi.edu wrote:
Hi all,
Our research group has been looking at assessing anycast usage.
(We have a technical report about
On 2011-09-27, at 10:09, Edward Lewis wrote:
A noble idea, but alas not terribly useful.
Not very useful for Neustar, maybe, but I would suggest that your requirements
in this regard are likely not to be universal.
We respond honestly to queries for HOSTNAME.BIND, VERSION.BIND, ID.SERVER,
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:21:48 EDT, Edward Lewis wrote:
At 13:53 -0400 9/27/11, Joe Abley wrote:
Not very useful for Neustar, maybe, but I would suggest that your
requirements in this regard are likely not to be universal.
No argument with that. But since the question was asked... What I
meant
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sep 27, 2011, at 2:21 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
Whether this is a DNSOP WG item rests on how broad the interest is
On Sep 27, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
I for one am interested and willing to work on this (responding for bean
Edward Lewis wrote:
There's nothing wrong with anyone implementing this. But whether this is
a DNSOP WG item rests on how broad the interest is and if there's a need
to coordinate for interoperability reasons.
Identification of a server is an issue to be handled by a unicast
address at the
