> On Jun 29, 2024, at 19:59, Paul Vixie <paul=40redbarn....@dmarc.ietf.org> > wrote: > It's my hope that CDN support can be added to DNS in a way that allows all > answers to be identical. Modern clients even mobile ones are powerful enough > to make application layer routing decisions locally. But we have to move away > from CNAME especially at the apex. The great bogie man of CDN seems to be > additional round trips.
Agreed. I would suggest that another goal should be to move away from
proprietary systems which attempt to lock content publishers into specific CDNs
to the exclusion of others. That is, essentially, single-homing on the content
side, and is just as bad an idea as monopoly-enforced single-homing on the
eyeball side. Multi-signer DNSSEC was a step in the right direction, I think.
Anything which entrenches DNS inside CNS because the CDN is too stupid to
function without even-stupider DNS tricks that break, for instance, zone
transfer, is really bad. And we’re at that point. There are people who have
data in CDNs, where the CDN tells them that they can only use that CDN’s
associated DNS, and are either anti-competitively unwilling to support
standards-based redundant DNS, or have broken things so badly that they’re
technologically incapable of it. Either is bad.
> On Jun 29, 2024 10:36, Jim Reid <j...@rfc1035.com> wrote:
> I agree this shouldn’t (doesn’t?) need to be standardised.
> However if the side meeting is able a make valid case for work on the topic,
> it deserves to be heard. And if it doesn’t, the proponents can get to be
> heard and then dismissed.
I agree with both of these as well.
-Bill
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
