It's my hope that CDN support can be added to DNS in a way that allows all answers to be identical. Modern clients even mobile ones are powerful enough to make application layer routing decisions locally. But we have to move away from CNAME especially at the apex. The great bogie man of CDN seems to be additional round trips. That's workable.
DNS RPZ, mentioned below, is intended as a security enhancer below the recursive and ought not be used above the recursive. So, off topic here. But to be clear, ECS has shown that the CDN industry is willing to involve recursive servers in their path selection activities, we might expect more technology of that kind to result from this side meeting. p vixie On Jun 29, 2024 10:36, Jim Reid <j...@rfc1035.com> wrote: > On 29 Jun 2024, at 18:10, Ray Bellis <r...@bellis.me.uk> wrote: > > The DNS was never designed intended to deliver different answers to different > users. DNSSEC solidified that and the practise IMNSHO should be discouraged, > not standardised. While this is undoubtedly true Ray, that ship sailed a *long* time ago*. I agree this shouldn’t (doesn’t?) need to be standardised. However if the side meeting is able a make valid case for work on the topic, it deserves to be heard. And if it doesn’t, the proponents can get to be heard and then dismissed. * IIUC BIND provides a few options to enable this bad idea: RPZ for instance. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
