>>> On 31/05/11 09:28, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
This problem could be avoided by providing the same data, but differently
sorted, correct?
>>
>> On 31.05.11 12:27, Phil Mayers wrote:
>>> Not really. Client side sorting may take place (e.g. to comply with RFC
>>> 3484 policies in call
On 01/06/11 08:11, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 31/05/11 09:28, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
This problem could be avoided by providing the same data, but differently
sorted, correct?
On 31.05.11 12:27, Phil Mayers wrote:
Not really. Client side sorting may take place (e.g. to comply wit
On 5/31/2011 7:39 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
It is still a bad idea. Fixing the clients so they work well with
multi-homed servers not only works today with mostly IPv4 servers
but also works well with dual stack server and IPv6 only servers.
You don't have to have artifially low TTLs on the DNS r
> On 31/05/11 09:28, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> This problem could be avoided by providing the same data, but differently
>> sorted, correct?
On 31.05.11 12:27, Phil Mayers wrote:
> Not really. Client side sorting may take place (e.g. to comply with RFC
> 3484 policies in calls to getaddri
On 31/05/11 09:28, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
This problem could be avoided by providing the same data, but differently
sorted, correct?
Not really. Client side sorting may take place (e.g. to comply with RFC
3484 policies in calls to getaddrinfo) and destroy any server-side sorting.
___
> In message <4de43e3e.2040...@chrysler.com>, Kevin Darcy writes:
> > Normally I'd defer to your vastly greater knowledge and experience in
> > DNSSEC, but here in the U.S. we have a saying "I'm from Missouri", which
> > is a roundabout way of expressing "show me" ("Show Me" being the
> > unoffi
In message <4de43e3e.2040...@chrysler.com>, Kevin Darcy writes:
> Normally I'd defer to your vastly greater knowledge and experience in
> DNSSEC, but here in the U.S. we have a saying "I'm from Missouri", which
> is a roundabout way of expressing "show me" ("Show Me" being the
> unofficial slog
Normally I'd defer to your vastly greater knowledge and experience in
DNSSEC, but here in the U.S. we have a saying "I'm from Missouri", which
is a roundabout way of expressing "show me" ("Show Me" being the
unofficial slogan of the state of Missouri). Maybe it *should* work, but
when it comes
In message <4de42bef.3050...@chrysler.com>, Kevin Darcy writes:
> Get back to us when you prove that this co-exists with DNSSEC; otherwise
> it's a non-starter. While you're at it, some data proving that this
> actually enhances performance or availability would be nice too.
On further examinat
It is still a bad idea. Fixing the clients so they work well with
multi-homed servers not only works today with mostly IPv4 servers
but also works well with dual stack server and IPv6 only servers.
You don't have to have artifially low TTLs on the DNS responses.
You get sub-second failover on ne
Get back to us when you prove that this co-exists with DNSSEC; otherwise
it's a non-starter. While you're at it, some data proving that this
actually enhances performance or availability would be nice too.
Hello,
I am reading this mailing as a digest so sorry for the late
replies. Firstly we have been using this method for over 4 years and
I've yet not had one person tell me that they can connect to our servers
using POP3, SMPT, IMAP or WEB.
1. Mark, Regarding Chrome, my last big cr
. In theory up to
> 14 different ISPs/IPs could be used to do the delivery.
>
> IT is a poor man’s replacement for BGP multihoming and IP anycast.
>
> For those that want a full explanation and an implementation guide.
> http://blog.hk.com/index.php?/archives/84-DNS-Racing.-Multi
Warren Kumari
--
Please excuse typing, etc -- This was sent from a device with a tiny keyboard.
On May 29, 2011, at 9:32 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <2c591af8-860d-45a5-9f3a-3603f3733...@kumari.net>, Warren Kumari
> writes:
>>
>> Um, how?
>>
>> Surely you can just sign the r
In message <2c591af8-860d-45a5-9f3a-3603f3733...@kumari.net>, Warren Kumari
writes:
>
> Um, how?
>
> Surely you can just sign the responses, same as any others?
>
> Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but this just looks like "normal"
> DNS LB...
>
> W
It depends on who is doing the modifi
Warren Kumari
--
Please excuse typing, etc -- This was sent from a device with a tiny keyboard.
On May 29, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Alan Clegg wrote:
> On 5/29/2011 5:12 PM, Maren S. Leizaola wrote:
>
>> IT is a poor man’s replacement for BGP multihoming and IP anycast.
>
>> Hey it is Free and
And if people used happy-eyeballs[1] or similar[2] in the applications
this would not be needed. Chrome already does this with their
latest browser. It uses a 300ms timer to switch to the next address.
Happy-eyeballs was primarially written to deal with broken 6to4
links but the techniques are
On 5/29/2011 5:12 PM, Maren S. Leizaola wrote:
> IT is a poor man’s replacement for BGP multihoming and IP anycast.
> Hey it is Free and you can implement it using BIND.
And you've just broken DNSSEC.
AlanC
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
anycast.
For those that want a full explanation and an implementation guide.
http://blog.hk.com/index.php?/archives/84-DNS-Racing.-Multi-ISP-load-balancing-with-failover-using-DNS..html
Hey it is Free and you can implement it using BIND.
Regards,
Maren
19 matches
Mail list logo
