> On Jun 29, 2018, at 12:38 PM, Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote: > > > > Michael Sheldon wrote: >> Breaking this out of the ANAME discussion, since it has wider use. >> >> I've been thinking on this one. If I was to create a record, I'd set >> aside a byte or two at the beginning to denote family, but I'm just >> paranoid and OCD that way. > > that seems like the long way around. > > for QTYPE=A, add AAAA as a desired additional data type. > > for QTYPE=AAAA, add A as a desired additional data type. > > advantages: > > no fork-lifts. incremental. opportunistic. no protocol changes. start today. > > any server which does it will give better time-to-first-ad benchmarks, and > will therefore outcompete any server who doesn't do it in all bakeoffs. >
I guess this depends on how the vendors implement the various minimal response bits. I’ve turned this on because in ye olden days (I think it was the 2nd half of the 90s) you could poison a cache by dumping in additional data, sometimes even out of the zone additional and cause this trouble. This is also documented as a performance gain, either due to less time packing the response or other wins. As a longtime ANY (ab)user, I welcome an approach where we get AAAA + A at the same time. This can be done by just returning the additional but it really depends on if the clients or stubs will use it. - Jared _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
