DNS delegation based on both location and organization

[martinez_ja5 at tsm.es]

That's why I am trying to make DNS as reliable as possible. :)

UDP should not pose a problem since plenty of bandwidth is available
locally (no need for reliable TCP). Also, load balancing should take ca=
re
of server availability.

I know DNS was not intended for critical resolution, but /etc/hosts fil=
e
really grew too large already and with so many server talking to each o=
ther
it is becoming quite hard to keep the file updated and small.

If you know of any other solution, please, let me know because I would =
love
to know about it.





                                                                       =
                                                               =20
                                                                       =
                                                               =20
                             Brad Knowles                 Para:      ma=
rtinez_ja5 at tsm.es                                              =20
                             <brad at stop.mail-abuse           cc:     ma=
yer at gis.net, bind-users at isc.org, Brad Knowles                  =20
                             .org>                         <brad at stop.m=
ail-abuse.org>                                                 =20
                                                         Asunto:     Re=
: DNS delegation based on both location and organization       =20
                                                                       =
                                                               =20
                                                                       =
                                                               =20
                                                                       =
                                                               =20
                             12/09/2005 10:25                          =
                                                               =20
                                                                       =
                                                               =20
                                                                       =
                                                               =20


                                                                       =
   =20
                Telef=F3nica M=F3viles Espa=F1a, S.A.                  =
         =20
                                                                       =
   =20




At 9:48 AM +0200 2005-09-12, martinez_ja5 at tsm.es wrote:

>  Actually I cannot allow even a single resolution miss (up to 1-2 sec=
onds
of
>  added delay before retrying the second server on the list is too muc=
h
for a
>  service network).

             Really?  Wow.  I'd love to hear more about whatever it is =
that

you're doing which cannot handle a 1-2 second delay, and which you
would deploy in such a way that it was dependant on an inherently
unreliable communications protocol such as DNS over UDP.

             All the ultra-low-latency applications I can think of
(including
wall street stock trading, where a second of downtime might cost you
tens or hundreds of millions of dollars), all make sure that they
don't depend on such unreliable types of systems, at least not for
the operational side of their networks.

--
Brad Knowles, <brad at stop.mail-abuse.org>

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

     -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
     Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755

   SAGE member since 1995.  See <http://www.sage.org/> for more info.



=