At Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:55:45 +0100,
Tony Finch wrote:
> I think there's still a need to standardize ANAME, to provide at least
> some level of zone file portability between the various existing
> proprietary versions of this feature. And to provide something usable
> by zone publisters on a much
Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> > With this model, signing only happens where it currently happens.
>
> Good. Although if you want to return bar's IP if it is different from
> foo's IP and for resolvers that don't understand ANAME, you have to
> synthesize these, but at least then it is nor worse then
> On 20 Sep 2018, at 07:13, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
>
> I don't follow how ANAME, if resolvers have to implement it, can be
> deployed within a few years,
Resolvers don’t “have to” implement it: resolver support is just an
optimisation that helps when the target is on a CDN. ANAME is mostly
Hi Tony
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 10:08:45PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> * minimal ANAME can be deployed unilaterally on the provisioning side
> * 20 years ago and similar features are widely available (you are
> * ahead of me on this one, John!); if resolvers implement it there
> * will be useful
