Dr. Lican Huang
It is perfectly clear now that the current IPv6 Root DNS architecture is
deeply flawed. It is strange that Paul Vixie asserts that there are no
future load problems, since Paul Vixie has previously asserted that DNS
Anycast is a solution to these future load problems. RFC1546 states, and
it has been experimentally demonstrated that Anycast doesn't work for
TCP connections. Recent discussion on NANOG has shown that operators
were under the mistaken impression that only AXFR uses TCP, and that
ordinary DNS queries are never performed over TCP. Perhaps this
explains why they think that DNS Anycast might be stable when TCP
Anycast is not stable; it seems they think (incorrectly) that DNS only
uses UDP.
Furthermore, in support of Dr. Lican Huang premise: As IPv6 records are
added to already limited priming and NS responses at the expense of IPv4
servers, IPv4 stability is reduced. Any reduction in the number of IPv4
servers in these responses imposes stability problems on the respective
IPv4 root, TLD, and other Domains. On the other hand, adding fewer IPv6
nameservers in NS and priming responses similarly compromises IPv6 DNS
stability. This is a hobbsian choice. This choice is only imposed
because of the mixing IPv6 and IPv4 records on the same set of root and
DNS servers. There is no need or requirement for such mixing. Using
entirely separate IPv4 and IPv6 resolvers avoids the hobbsian choice
caused by the mixing.
So, I think that a complete set of IPv6 root nameservers should be
created, and that the scalability solution proposed by Dr. Lican Huang
should be seriously considered as a solution to the scalability problems
already experienced in IPv4, so that IPv6 DNS over TCP can be handled
reliably.
--Dean
On 24 Jun 2008, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> thank you for your work on this. i find no support for this assertion:
>
> 1. Introduction
>
> Although DNS becomes a vital component in today's Internet
> infrastructure, the existing DNS architecture will encounter
> problems in the future for the growth of the Internet.
> ...
> DNS implementation currently used may encounter overload traffic
> in root DNS servers. ...
>
> therefore while i find your proposed solution to be of high quality, there
> is a cost in overall system complexity for adding a virtual routing layer to
> the DNS, which would have to be justified by a much more complete problem
> statement and an objective analysis of more than one alternative.
>
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
