On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:57 PM,
<bmanning(_at_)vacation(_dot_)karoshi(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 05:11:47PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
i disagree. dns-based load balancing is an unfortunate overloading
and
should never be done. RFC 3484 is correct as it is.
Why is it right for topology-ignorant clients to override
topology-aware
DNS servers based on wishful thinking about RIR address allocation
policies?
neither a client or a server can be guaranteed topology-aware. dns
leaves
ordering deliberately undefined and encourages applications to use their
own best judgement.
DNSSEC does reorder RRSets within a zone. Which is a new feature.
When we started talking about order of RRSets? This is purely discussion
about order of RRs in RRSet. Order of RRSets in zone is irrelevant before
DNSSEC and also after DNSSEC. Nothing depends on order of RRSets
at least in my best knowledge.
Ondrej.
--
Ondrej Sury
technicky reditel/Chief Technical Officer
-----------------------------------------
CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry
Americka 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic
mailto:ondrej(_dot_)sury(_at_)nic(_dot_)cz http://nic.cz/
sip:ondrej(_dot_)sury(_at_)nic(_dot_)cz
<sip%3Aondrej(_dot_)sury(_at_)nic(_dot_)cz> tel:+420.222745110
mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112
-----------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf