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,
e
will introduce 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.tx
* 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
TED]>
>Subject: Re: [DNSOP] 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.
>>>
* 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) o
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 publi
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 wa
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
> entire
ean Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>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,
>
>
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
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.
Edward Lewis wrote:
> [0] - I cringe when I see a response to a new idea that contains that
> phrase. It can be so, um, anti-innovative and un-motivating plus
> antagonistic. Sometimes the application of a tool to a problem may be
> wrong though sometimes it can spark another idea.
I
On 27 Jun 2008, at 10:37, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
More seriously, if there is no ".com" name server in China, it is
indeed a problem (but I do not know if it is true or not)
If that was true, I think it would be a problem for Verisign, and for
Chinese Internet users, and possibly ICANN,
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 thi
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> 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.
My point was not base
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 "
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 assumi
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?
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:draf
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 so
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 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-r
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 the PRC are connected to
popular exchange
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
DNSOP@ietf.or
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
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
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
Regarding:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns-04.txt
This document begins with a faulty problem statement, shows an
apparent misunderstanding of how the DNS functions and seems to not
recognize what DNS's great strengths are. Whether the idea is a
"solut
> 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
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 so. Have a look at http://www.isc.org/ops/f-ro
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 hasn'
AIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-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 V
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 stat
> 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 a
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
[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
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
37 matches
Mail list logo
