At Mon, 03 Jul 2017 11:23:01 +0200, "Peter van Dijk" <peter.van.d...@powerdns.com> wrote:
> > In that sense I see some disparity with the > > ALIAS record of Amazon Route53, one of the earliest (and probably > > largest) players of the idea: > > - Supporting other types of records than AAAA and A > > - Allowing different target names for different types > > As I replied to John Levine, we do not feel this is prudent at this > stage. Operational experience with ANAME, once standardised and > deployed, would be a good basis for another draft that is more > extensive, like having a type bitmap - this would support both these > features. > > > I don't know how critical these are for existing R53 ALIAS users, but > > depending on that ANAME may not be able to be successful in practice. > > Outside of R53, most implementations appear to be similar. That’s a > pretty decent installed base that we can try to convert! I'm no by means an advocate of R53-ALIAS, but I suspect its deployment base as an ALIAS variant is too big to ignore. If we just keep ignoring them with the wish of eventual conversion, I'm afraid it's quite possible that we'll end up having two (or more) incompatible variants, each has a non-negligible size of deployment. IMO we should more explicitly try to avoid that situation. In that sense I'd like to suggest contacting someone at Amazon to see if they are interested in developing an interoperable standard version of ALIAS. With such efforts and hopefully some hope to have the possibility of having more compatible deployments, I have no problem with deferring extensions itself. -- JINMEI, Tatuya _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
