On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:47 PM, Lanlan Pan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Petr Špaček <[email protected]>于2018年6月19日周二 下午9:19写道： > >> Hello dnsop, >> >> beware, material in this e-mail might cause your head to explode :-) >> >> This proposal is based on following observations: >> - It seems that DNS protocol police lost battle about CNAME at apex, >> is is deployed on the Internet. >> - Major DNS resolvers like BIND, Unbound, PowerDNS Recursor, dnsmasq >> already have code to cope with the "impossible" case of CNAME at the >> apex and deal with it in ways which do not break stuff on resolver >> side. >> - Authoritative servers of vendors named above refuse to serve CNAME at >> apex. >> - There are CDNs etc. which allow users to create CNAME at apex >> no matter what the standards and "normal" servers say and do. >> (We have found out this because Knot Resolver is missing hacks for CNAME >> at apex and users complain that "it works with every other resolver".) >> >> >> Take a deep breath! >> >> >> Given that resolver side somehow works already ... >> could we standardize this obvious violation of RFC 1035? >> >> It is very clear violation of the standard, but almost everyone found >> his way around it using different hacks. These hacks are not going away >> because all the CDNs just don't care about standards so we will have >> to maintain this code no matter what a great solution we will invent for >> future. I.e. adding ANAME will just increase complexity because CNAME at >> apex will be there for a long time (if not forever). >> >> I personally do not like this but it seems better to think though >> corner cases in code we already have in production (i.e. think through >> current hacks for CNAME at apex) instead of inventing new things like >> ANAME (or whatever else). >> > I think ANAME RR is hard to compatible with many old version resolvers. > If there are mutiple ANAME RR at compatible resolvers, authoritatives may > not know that resolvers will choose which A RR for client response. > > ANAME can ease apex CNAME configuration, maybe a work round is that > authoritatives directly return A RR to resolvers (but not ANAME RR). > This is essentially what those of us who implemented ANAME in authoritative name servers do right now. The original draft I started about ALIAS records also spelled out only this solution with some operational guidance on best practices. > >> Opinions? Tomatoes? Can it work? If not, why not? >> >> -- >> Petr Špacek @ CZ.NIC >> >> _______________________________________________ >> DNSOP mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >> > -- > 致礼 Best Regards > > 潘蓝兰 Pan Lanlan > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > > -- DNSimple.com http://dnsimple.com/ Twitter: @dnsimple
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
