DNS is broken since people started disallowing AXFR transfers.
DNS is no longer about publishing information about hostnames and numbers
but about keeping this information a seecret.
So not using DNS at all and distributing host files is much better than
DNS and more reliable :)
On the other hand, in good old /etc/hosts days you could always reverse
query and get all aliases to every ip address. E.g. NIS still works like
that. And NIS has mostly the same bells and whistles DNS has, like MX
records and unimaginable additional record types.
In addition DNS is designed with a single one root scope. So if you
have to deal with chinese, arab and russian namespaces then DNS probably
is not the right choice :)
If ISPs were not starting to block port 53 DNS the I would guess somebody
will come up with a totally new idea and implement this using the port
53 DNS interface but even bonjour/rendezvous work with a port different
from 53.
Kind regards
Peter and Karin
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Keith Moore wrote:
p.s. rather than adding more and more burdens to DNS, what we really
need to be doing is figuring out how to replace it with something more
robust and more flexible. (Yes, you'd have to arrange that DNS
queries and queries to the new database would return consistent
results; you'd also have to make sure that DNSSEC didn't break, but
those are both doable.)
DNS is getting very long in the tooth, and is entirely too inflexible
and too fragile. The very fact that we're having a discussion about
whether it makes more sense to add a new RR type or use TXT records
with DKIM is a clear indicator that something seriously is wrong with
DNS. Adding a new RR type should not require a single line of DNS
server or client library code to be recompiled, nor any changes to the
configuration of any server not advertising such records.
Keith,
I've seen you say this for many years now, but I'll bite now.
Do you have ideas what a more flexible, less fragile, and in general a
better mechanism would:
1) be or look like, or
2) what requirements we should have for building and deploying it?
(if such a thing or a close likeness doesn't exist)
I wonder if there are practical alternatives. A bit more dialogue on
"what else" instead of "DNS is a bad idea" might help in figuring out
whether there is anything the IETF could do about it.
--
Peter and Karin Dambier
Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
Von-Erthal-Strasse 4
D-64646 Heppenheim
+49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
mail: peter(_at_)peter-dambier(_dot_)de
mail: peter(_at_)cesidianroot(_dot_)com
http://iason.site.voila.fr/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
http://www.cesidianroot.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf