Dynamic IP & cache DNS

[Kevin Darcy]

Brad Knowles wrote:

> At 5:23 PM -0400 9/11/01, Kevin Darcy wrote:
>
> >  Well, "the topic in question" was a proposal for a protocol
> >  extension, until you tried to abruptly change it.
>
>         I don't see that as an abrupt change to the topic in question.
> IMO, the state of affairs on your public nameservers is a clear
> indicator of how well they would be able to make proper use of a
> feature such as you are proposing.

Hmmm, not really. This would be an automatic function of the nameserver, not
something an administrator would have to carefully configure into it.
I think it's still a huge leap to say that just because there is some bogus
data in a particular zone, that this proves that the authoritative
nameservers for the zone wouldn't be able to deal with advanced protocol
features. We could upgrade all of the authoritative nameservers for
daimlerchrysler.com to BIND 9 and keep the same bogus data. Surely you would
agree that BIND 9 is more sophisticated than BIND 8, wouldn't you? I think
this is then a valid counterargument.

> >                                                     So is your
> >  point that a little zone-data sloppiness (not mine, by the way),
> >  mismatched delegations, missing PTR records, or the like, would
> >  somehow make the extension unworkable?
>
>         I wouldn't call it "a little zone-data sloppiness" or anything
> remotely close to that.  It would seem to me to be a pretty big mess,
> actually.
>
>         That said, if you are not responsible for these machines, you
> have my apologies.  There's certainly a lot of garbage in these
> zones, and maybe you should be put in charge of these machines.

That's a matter of internal politics, but I'll take your suggestion under
advisement.

> >                                          Please explain.
>
>         No, even the level of problems I found would not necessarily make
> the feature itself unworkable, but I do feel that the state of
> affairs found on your public nameservers is a very clear indication
> of the amount and quality of administration being currently put into
> them, and their ability to make use of any additional advanced
> features, such as you are proposing.

And I see the issues as completely separate. Oh well.


- Kevin