All,
I fail to submit a revision of my draft by cutoff, and
could not post it right now.
So I attached a draft to this e-mail.
I'm sorry that it does not reflect the discussion of this
thread greatly. I hope to have comments.
Kindest regards,
draft-arifumi-6man-rfc3484-revise-01.txt
Description: Text document
On 2009/03/04, at 23:33, Tim Chown wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 02:09:22PM +0000, Tony Finch wrote:
It seems that Vista implements RFC 3484 address selection,
including the
requirement to sort IP addresses. This breaks a great deal of
operational
dependence on DNS-based load balancing, as well as being based on an
incorrect understanding of how IP addresses are allocated.
RFC 3484 needs to be updated to delete this rule, so that the order
returned from the DNS is honoured when the client has no better
knowledge
about which address is appropriate.
See
http://drplokta.livejournal.com/109267.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg51874.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/discuss/current/msg01035.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05847.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2007/11/msg00029.html
The issue is mentioned in:
http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-arifumi-6man-rfc3484-revise-00.txt
"2.5. To disable or restrict RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9
There was a discussion at v6ops and ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists
that
the rule 9 of the destination address selection has a serious
adverse
effect on the round robin DNS technique...."
However the above has expired. Perhaps Arifumi will issue a new
version
before the upcoming cutoff.
--
Tim
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Arifumi Matsumoto
Secure Communication Project
NTT Information Sharing Platform Laboratories
E-mail: arifumi(_at_)nttv6(_dot_)net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf