[102001] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 gluelessness
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Simon Leinen)
Tue Jan 22 09:46:13 2008
From: Simon Leinen <simon.leinen@switch.ch>
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Cc: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>,
nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <49F27244-24F1-473E-A6A5-75E4A55CF896@muada.com> (Iljitsch van
Beijnum's message of "Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:29:51 +0100")
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:35:18 +0100
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
>> Going back to operational issue (yes, incredible as it may seems, I
>> won't write here what I think of ICANN), there is a *technical*
>> solution to this issue, which is the one deployed by the
>> RIPE-NCC. Give a different *name* (and may be a different *IP
>> address*) to every ccTLD.
> This is suboptimal because it limits the opportunity for nameservers
> to measure RTTs and contact the fastest server.
Only if these nameservers do the Bad Thing and track responsiveness by
server name rather than by server address.
(I think a well-known DNS implementation does or used to do it this
Bad way, which was part of the reason that it sometimes locked on to a
server with an unreachable IPv6 address and a fast-responding IPv4
address - and of course it would always try the IPv6 address first )-:
--
Simon.
