> I don't think anyone disagrees DNS can be improved. I don't think this > is being dodged by the discussion about logging either. It's > absolutely about what happens to any system when DNS is at play. The > more populated the system, the more problematic this can become. So > change is needed and it's a good topic to bring up! > > I think the problem we see with logging is part of the inefficiency, > and while part of that is being addressed now, if you are going after > logging (of dns) or dns itself, it's more like a chicken and egg thing > to me. I don't care if you decide to boil the egg or fry the chicken > first. In the end they both need to be cooked. Why isn't talking > about the template and ttl's part of the dns efficiencies improvement > discussion. I thought it was. Whether you load the DNS zone into > memory in sipx service (it better be a bullet proof thing) and cache > the zones locally, the ttl and failover stuff need to be addressed in > general. > > As for the bind views idea, why not use branches for that? There was > this idea called branches, which had a great way to deal with gateways > and dial plan rules and 911 and all that, but not much has been done > with it yet. > > Fix the proxy logging the erroneus dns queries, fix tls/registrar > thing, fix the dns templates, fix the ttl's, fix the performance and > efficiency of dns. Which is the chicken and the egg? Introducing bind > views (but what about windoze dns, because microsoft simply won't > support that at this time as far as I know) is perhaps the best way to > deal with it but only on linux So if you are about to suggest bind > views for everyone, how will this affect the MS admins who wont run > dns on linux and can't support views? Maybe a way to do this onboard > with "branches" would be a way to surreptitiously work the bind view > management onboard into sipx, but I'm not sure that will satisfy > everyone either. > > So if I am a subscriber and I register and I am assigned to BranchA > couldn't I get a different set of results for a sip call and so at > the same time couldn't any of my servers get one that is also BranchA? > Perhaps. > > This is a great discussion to have by the way. > I guess it would "lower the bar" technically for new installs if a "match-clients" option is added to define different views in configuring the DNS. Maybe the best place is at the server level not branch as each server in a HA would probably have it's own DNS settings if the servers were on different networks. This would become more of an issue when true stand alone survivability can be achieved in a HA.
-- Regards -------------------------------------- Gerald Drouillard Technology Architect Drouillard& Associates, Inc. http://www.Drouillard.biz _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev/
