ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [Asrg] Re: RMX evaluation

2003-05-13 12:16:36

The advantage of Paul Vixie's proposal is, that it doesn't require
a new DNS RR type. 

The disadvantage is, that it is error prone and takes a high overhead:

There are providers who provide services for 20..2,000,000 domains. 
Since in this proposal the domain zone tables must list every single
mail relay, all zone tables must be updated if the provider installs
an additional relay. If the provider does have access to the zone
tables, this is just a heap of work. If the provider does not have
access to the zone tables, then it is a severe overhead and delay
to inform all the domain owners and ask them to update their tables.
When writing your domain table, you need a detailed list of the 
relays your provider has. At least you need to know the number of
relays. In reality, it would certainly look like this:

.. MX  relay0.provider.com
       relay1.provider.com
       relay2.provider.com

But you will always have to update the list if the provider uses
one more relay than you have listed. 

That's why RMX uses an indirection step through the provider's 
APL records. It's a design criterion to avoid this overhead and
delay.

Wouldn't it be fairly easy to overcome this problem pretty trivially?

For example 
        - allow wild card characters in the record, or
        - specify the containing domain rather than the fully qualified name, or
        - use the same indirection as the RMX proposal

Tom

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg