Matthew Pounsett <m...@conundrum.com> wrote: > > I feel like this is creating an even bigger potential problem. What > happens when the owner of the ANAME target legitimately wants that > name to go away, but some other zone owner is leaving an ANAME in > place pointing to that now-nonexistent name? Continuing to serve the > sibling records indefinitely seems like serve-stale gone horribly > wrong.
It's worth noting that Oracle's ANAME model does not couple the sibling addresses to the ANAME target addresses. As I understand it, they have additional "fallback" infrastructure (web servers and whatnot) which is used when the ANAME target isn't available. I'm not sure how this would work as a replacement for CNAME, when the request from the user comes without any information about how to set up a fallback server. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ Biscay: Variable 3 or less, becoming southeast 3 or 4. Moderate, becoming slight. Fair. Moderate or good. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
