Subject: [homenet] About multiple CPEs in front-end-naming-delegation

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 20:19:05 +0100

Hi,

I made the following comment at today's meeting.  A comment I made earlier
about the naming delegation draft is that it makes the following assumptions:

  - there is just one CPE;
  - the hidden master is co-located with the CPE.

It was difficult to follow remotely, but I believe that two contradictory
answers were given: that nothing changes if there are multiple CPEs, and
that one of the CPEs will need to be chosen to act as hidden master.

While I don't have strong opinions about which of the above alternatives
is preferable, I believe that what happens in the presence of multiple
CPEs should be made explicit in the draft.  I refer you to RFC 7368
Section 3.2.4.

Thanks for listening,

-- Juliusz

---

From: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:43:57 -0400

Hi Juliusz,

>From the discussion this morning, this is my understanding how how multiple
should be handled: DNS architecture does not allow one secondary with
multiple primaries. This means that if multiple CPE are used for a given
DNS(SEC) Homenet Zone, each of them must have their own set of secondaries.
One specific case is when one set has all the secondaries and the other
have an empty set of secondaries.

Regarding the co-location of the hidden primary and the CPE. The document
mostly details a primary/secondary configuration which does not depend on
the which device is hosting the primary. Because most probably the primary
will be hosted on a CPE, then we also document interactions with other
services that are generally hosted on CPE.

We asked at the Toronto meeting whether the denomination CPE should be
changed and replace by something like HIDDEN_PRIMARY_HOST or something
equivalent. The agreement at that time was that using CPE was fine and that
it eases the comprehension of the document.

BR,
Daniel

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>

-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 15:24:11 +1100

In message <CADZyTkkyqTu5D2-Fxke33XUns4uOSV7zbsW=[email-masked]>, Daniel Mig
> it eases the comprehension of the document.

Aditionally there is one forward namespace and multiple reverse namespaces.

CPE A may be master for the forward namespace and master for reverse space A.
CPE B may be a slave for the forward namespace and master for reverse space B.

Updates can be directeded at eithe CPE A or B for the forward space while updates
to the reverse namespace are directed at the appropriate CPE.

Multi-master is a unsolved problem in the DNS. 

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]