Re: [DNSOP] FW: New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-edns-isp-location-00

2017-03-20 Thread Lanlan Pan
Hi Barry, Thanks for your comments. Because the draft discussed the DNS privacy problem of ECS, and was first presented in In NDSS 2017 DNS Privacy Workshop, so I cc the email to dprive WG. Barry Raveendran Greene 于2017年3月19日周日 上午2:22写道： Hello Yu Fu, I was not at the

Re: [DNSOP] FW: New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-edns-isp-location-00

2017-03-20 Thread Paul Vixie
On Monday, March 20, 2017 3:40:46 AM GMT Lanlan Pan wrote: > At NDSS there is a question that "why not directly use AS number" ? client > subnet can be maped into AS number, which is used for bgp route at network > topology. > > My answer was that AS4134 cover multiple provinces in china, from

Re: [DNSOP] FW: New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-edns-isp-location-00

2017-03-19 Thread Lanlan Pan
Hi Warren， Obviously we all know that network topology is not equal to physical topology. To give "most precisely" for authoritative servers to decide most satisfied "network topology", ECS use client subnet. At NDSS there is a question that "why not directly use AS number" ? client subnet can

Re: [DNSOP] FW: New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-edns-isp-location-00

2017-03-18 Thread Barry Raveendran Greene
Hello Yu Fu, I was not at the workshop. Warren already mentioned some issues. I second what he is saying in a stronger terms: + What you are proposing has no value for optimizing content delivery on the Internet. Physical location and the topology of content delivery do not match. Also,

Re: [DNSOP] FW: New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-edns-isp-location-00

2017-03-18 Thread Warren Kumari
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Lanlan Pan wrote: > Hi all, > > In NDSS 2017 DNS Privacy Workshop, I presented a EIL option as an > alternative privacy improvement for ECS. Yes, and at NDSS I provided the following feedback (which perhaps you misunderstood) Much of the