Subject: [Asrg] draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-01.txt

From: Hadmut Danisch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 22:20:01 +0200

Hi,

btw, the second version of the RMX draft ist available
at 

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-01.txt

regards
Hadmut
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: "Derek J. Balling" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 09:26:08 -0400

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-01.txt

Perhaps I'm missing it, but I still don't see a solution to the problem 
of "needing more RMX records than can safely fit inside a UDP response 
packet".

Is it your plan that $BIG_SITE which might have hundreds of valid 
networks around the world should incur on its NS-set, TCP lookups from 
MTAs around the world over and over again?

This, to me, seems a significant barrier to entry. The sites who are 
most likely to want to use a DS/RMX solution are the ones who have many 
many networks, and it would be committing Name Server Suicide to 
subject them to what would in the end amount to an 
created-to-specification DDoS, because they have to fail over to TCP 
for every MTA request.

You've made the comment to me, privately, that you consider this bad 
network design, but the reality is that for most applications it's 
called "redundancy" and/or "wide customer base", either of which is a 
perfectly valid solution for having large, diverse, network address 
ranges like that.

Any solution along these lines, IMHO, *has* to be certain that its 
responses are going to stay in within the scope of a standard UDP 
response packet, or it's going to be a non-starter when it comes to 
adoption by the people by whom its adoption is most desired.

D