Subject: Re: RFC2136 question

From: [email-masked] (Mike Dooley)
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:40:54 -0500

The QIP approach for using 2136 to update secondaries is an optional proxy
to Notify and IXFR which is not yet matured to full interoperability between
vendors (as proved in the IETF testing this week).  We would love to
implement a full interoperable (cross DNS vendor) solution to this problem,
but one does not yet exist (good news ... we (DNS Vendors) are getting
closer).   As soon as interoperability is reliably acheived, we (DNS
Vendors) can all use IXFR and Notify to solve this issue.

Also, "which fails in a catastrophic way" is taken out of context.   The QIP
solution is NOT just DNS, it is a combined centralized database and DNS.
QIP is the authority in this system, not DNS.   It is aware of all dynamic
updates to all DNS servers (that are managed by QIP).

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul A Vixie <[email-masked]>
To: namedroppers <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, November 11, 1999 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: RFC2136 question

>> No provision for updates when the master is down?  *That* is
unacceptable.
>
>i don't disagree.  but doing it in a proprietary fashion which is not
>interoperable with other vendors' implementations and which fails in
>a catastrophic way (by default, as in the QIP case, since full RFC
>compliance is "an option") is absolutely the wrong approach.
>
>multi-master DNS is not an impossible dream.  we can have it.  we talked
>about it somewhat during the discussions which led to RFC 2136.  it's not
>an unsolvable problem, but it was seen as a different problem than 2136.
>
>let's start working on it.  there are a million details to iron out.
>
>but shipping code that does the wrong thing by default with RFC 2136
messages
>is just not on the menu.

---

From: "Cutler, James R" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 05:58:16 -0500

Mark,

The reason for slave servers is equally 
	load distribution
	rapid access (global locations)
	redundancy

It is difficult to prioritize these universally.

	JimC

-----Original Message-----
From: M. T. Hollinger [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 06:51 PM
To: Robert Elz; Paul A Vixie
Cc: [email-masked]; namedroppers
Subject: Re: RFC2136 question 

<snip>
Paul, don't you agree that the main reason for having slave servers is to
provide redundancy during periods when the master is down? <snip>

            - Mark