On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:55:41PM -0700, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > On 20 March 2013 20:43, Andrew Sullivan <asulli...@dyn.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 08:28:23PM -0700, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > >> Any plans to make DNS itself GeoDNS-friendly? > > > > No. And I say this as someone working for a vendor that provides that > > service. > > > > Any sort of "Geo" DNS is what protocol people would call a "stupid DNS > > trick". It works in particular, narrowly-scoped ways because of the > > loose coherence of the DNS. But as a matter of protocol, you can't > > really standardize it, because it's actually taking advantage of > > certain flexibilities in the DNS and its interaction with the routing > > system. Turning that operational fact into a protocol feature would > > be a bad idea. > > You are coming to this from the perspective of the existing > conventions, and the current way that GeoDNS is done through a > Split-Horizon DNS hack. > > But this is not what I want. > > What I want is an ability to specify multiple A and AAAA records, and > their locations, and make it possible for the web-browser to > automatically select the best location based on the presumed location > of the user. Browsers might have a couple of rules, e.g. that Europe > and parts of Asia are currently not directly connected to Asia, but NA > is, and such rules would influence browser's decision to choose a > Quebec server for a user in Japan, since it'll likely be much closer > than the one in Moscow. > > Does it sound too complicated and pointy? Yes, it's not exactly > trivial, and not as good as BGP, but better than having 300ms latency > from a simple round-robin. > > C.
peice of cake. add loc records to your rrset. /bill
