On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> you'll see roundrobin and lifo, among others, in many caches including
> stub caches.
Large numbers of sites have been depending on this behaviour for over 15
years, so it was wrong of RFC 3484 to break it.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> we've been lifo'ing and round robin'ing dns data in caches and stubs for a
> lot longer than 15 years,
This is the key feature than RFC 3484 breaks.
(I wasn't sure of the history - it was very murky when I tried to find the
origin of round-robin DNS.)
To
* Paul Vixie:
>> Large numbers of sites have been depending on this behaviour for over 15
>> years, so it was wrong of RFC 3484 to break it.
>
> some number of vendors have depended on revenue from selling this feature
> but i'd say that only a small number of sites ever saw any benefit from it.
> > you'll see roundrobin and lifo, among others, in many caches including
> > stub caches.
>
> Large numbers of sites have been depending on this behaviour for over 15
> years, so it was wrong of RFC 3484 to break it.
some number of vendors have depended on revenue from selling this feature
but
> The NTP issue is rather specific and affected ntpd when you had
>
> server pool.ntp.org
> server pool.ntp.org
> server pool.ntp.org
>
> in your configuration.
>
> And some those mirrors I mentioned are affected by *deterministic*
> reordering. They don't care if traffic hits the closest insta
Paul Vixie wrote:
>>> some number of vendors have depended on revenue from selling this
>>> feature but i'd say that only a small number of sites ever saw any
>>> benefit from it.
>> pool.ntp.org, security.debian.org, rsync.gentoo.org,
>> [a-o].ns.spamhaus.org, [a-n].surbl.org. In general the "lar
On Mar 8, 2009, at 21:24, Danny Mayer wrote:
i'm not sure we're in the same discussion. pool.ntp.org is using
short
ttl and silent truncation and round robin. there's no geo-ip
stability
that could be hurt by client-side reordering or rerandomizing. and
the
nameserver examples you gave
* Paul Vixie:
>> > some number of vendors have depended on revenue from selling this
>> > feature but i'd say that only a small number of sites ever saw any
>> > benefit from it.
>>
>> pool.ntp.org, security.debian.org, rsync.gentoo.org,
>> [a-o].ns.spamhaus.org, [a-n].surbl.org. In general the
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Paul Vixie:
>
some number of vendors have depended on revenue from selling this
feature but i'd say that only a small number of sites ever saw any
benefit from it.
>>> pool.ntp.org, security.debian.org, rsync.gentoo.org,
>>> [a-o].ns.spamhaus.org, [a-n].sur
