* Joe Abley:
9.8.7.6.5.0.4.0.0.0.3.0.0.0.2.0.0.0.1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1.2.3.4.IP6.
ARPA.
... such a PTR record would most likely be obtained by following four
(root - ip6.arpa - RIR sever - LIR server - assignee server) or
three
] I-D ACTION:draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns-04.txt
Date:Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:09:11 +0200
* Joe Abley:
9.8.7.6.5.0.4.0.0.0.3.0.0.0.2.0.0.0.1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1.2.3.4.IP6.
ARPA.
... such a PTR record would most likely be obtained
* 黄理灿:
If total number of PTR records is smail, that is right. But if most
of IPv6 address space is used, one zone can not keep many PTR
records. This will leads to many hierarchical zones.
I don't think this is true. Even standard DNS servers scale to millions
of records in a single zone,
extra levels of delegation.
Mark
From: Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To:
To: Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D ACTION:draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns-04.txt
Date:Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:09:11 +0200
* Joe Abley
I'm not confusing zone boundardies with label boundaries. 32 levels is
the worst case. In practice, it'll probably be much more than 3 or 4
levels, but probably in most cases fewer than 32. But it is widely
expected to be very problematic to maintain, and has always been
problematic to maintain,
Oh yeah--That's right. 32 levels--Much worse than I said. I wrote up
many of the issues with reverse dns about 1.5 years ago. I submitted it
to the IETF, but there was no interest in publishing this information.
http://www.av8.net/draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status-01.txt
The following example
On 6 Jul 2008, at 18:16, Dean Anderson wrote:
Oh yeah--That's right. 32 levels--Much worse than I said.
No. To reiterate the point that I saw Fred making...
I wrote up
many of the issues with reverse dns about 1.5 years ago. I submitted
it
to the IETF, but there was no interest in
Mr. Anderson,
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 05:36:04PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
A number of the points you raise have already been addressed.
The IPV6 Reverse resolution question has been discussed at length in
DNSEXT previously. In fact, it was proposed to remove reverse resolution
entirely
A number of the points you raise have already been addressed.
The IPV6 Reverse resolution question has been discussed at length in
DNSEXT previously. In fact, it was proposed to remove reverse resolution
entirely from IPV6 for just the reason Dr. Huang notes. A 128 bit IPV6
address is 16 octets.
Dean Anderson (dean) writes:
A number of the points you raise have already been addressed.
Hi Dean,
Where ?
The IPV6 Reverse resolution question has been discussed at length in
DNSEXT previously. In fact, it was proposed to remove reverse resolution
entirely from IPV6 for
]
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D ACTION:draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns-04.txt
Date:Sun, 29 Jun 2008 00:27:11 +0200
Dean Anderson (dean) writes:
A number of the points you raise have already been addressed.
Hi Dean,
Where ?
The IPV6 Reverse resolution question has been discussed
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 05:28:48PM +0800,
?? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 39 lines which said:
If ISP located at China with domain name with www.*.com, then
probably unreachable because of its RR stored in the DN Server
located at USA.
We (the .fr registry) always use this
P2P technology.
From: Joao Damas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To:
To: é»çç?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D ACTION:draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns-04.txt
Date:Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:17:05 +0200
On Jun 25, 2008, at 10:58 AM, é»çç?wrote:
For example, the fibre cables connecting
On 26 Jun 2008, at 06:13, 黄理灿 wrote:
If queries can not find the right data in the local cache, this
draft goes to the servers in the upper layer of tree or the servers
having the minimun hop distance with authoritative server, instead
of going to the root servers.
You seem to be
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 09:42:35PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
And furthermore, these two China servers don't benefit any ISP in China
that doesn't peer with ISC, so Dr. Huang's hypothetical scenario is
true, as previously demonstrated, despite Mr. Abley's humorous
assertions about their
-D ACTION:draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns-04.txt
Date:Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:39:10 -0400 (EDT)
Dr. Lican Huang
It is perfectly clear now that the current IPv6 Root DNS architecture is
deeply flawed. It is strange that Paul Vixie asserts that there are no
future load problems, since Paul Vixie
On 25 Jun 2008, at 04:58, 黄理灿 wrote:
For example, the fibre cables connecting US with China was broken by
earthquake, then almost all web pages was unreachable even the
machine was in China because of root servers are located in USA.
Note that this isn't even close to being true, and
From: 黄理灿 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
... almost all web pages was unreachable even the machine was in China
because of root servers are located in USA. ...
according to http://f.root-servers.org/, there are two f-root servers in
china. if you have local contacts within china, please help us add
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 04:58:18PM +0800,
?? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 85 lines which said:
Thanks, Dean,
Lican, I must tell you that associating with a known troll like
D. A. is not a good idea to spread your ideas. Almost everything in
his message is completely wrong (for
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 04:58:18PM +0800,
?? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 85 lines which said:
Thanks, Dean,
Lican, I must tell you that associating with a known troll like
D. A. is not a good idea to spread your ideas.
According to this page, both F-root servers in China are local nodes,
meaning they don't advertise their route outside of the ISP they are
connected to.
In fact, all copies of F-root except 2 (below) are local nodes, and the
two that aren't, are quite close geographically. ISC doesn't publish
if only ICANN
were to publish the root zone publicly instead of only to root server
operators.
You mean like http://www.internic.net/domain/root.zone that has been
published since, oh, 1996 or so?
Regards,
-drc
___
DNSOP mailing list
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Joe Abley wrote:
On 25 Jun 2008, at 16:08, Dean Anderson wrote:
According to this page, both F-root servers in China are local
nodes, meaning they don't advertise their route outside of the ISP
they are connected to.
The ISP is misleading; both F-root nodes in
On 25 Jun 2008, at 21:42, Dean Anderson wrote:
There is nothing misleading in The ISP.
Apart from the fact that it's singular, which was the basis of the
only technical point it seemed to me that you tried to make.
Joe
___
DNSOP mailing list
On 25 jun 2008, at 14.17, Joao Damas wrote:
On Jun 25, 2008, at 10:58 AM, 黄理灿 wrote:
For example, the fibre cables connecting US with China was broken
by earthquake, then almost all web pages was unreachable even the
machine was in China because of root servers are located in USA.
Not
with authoritative
server, instead of going to the root servers. This draft can work well in sub
networks when they are disconnected with other outside networks.
From: Edward Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To:
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D ACTION:draft-licanhuang-dnsop
Hi,
I have updated distributed DNS implementation in Ipv6.
Please give your comments.
Thanks.
Dr. Lican Huang
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns-04.txt
Date:Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:45:01 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (黄理灿) writes:
Hi,
I have updated distributed DNS implementation in Ipv6.
Please give your comments.
Thanks.
Dr. Lican Huang
thank you for your work on this. i find no support for this assertion:
1. Introduction
Although DNS becomes a vital
Paul Vixie (vixie) writes:
therefore while i find your proposed solution to be of high quality, there
is a cost in overall system complexity for adding a virtual routing layer to
the DNS, which would have to be justified by a much more complete problem
statement and an objective analysis of
Paul Vixie (vixie) writes:
therefore while i find your proposed solution to be of high quality, there
is a cost in overall system complexity for adding a virtual routing layer to
the DNS, which would have to be justified by a much more complete problem
statement and an objective analysis
Dr. Lican Huang
It is perfectly clear now that the current IPv6 Root DNS architecture is
deeply flawed. It is strange that Paul Vixie asserts that there are no
future load problems, since Paul Vixie has previously asserted that DNS
Anycast is a solution to these future load problems. RFC1546
31 matches
Mail list logo
