RE: new i-draft link

[Eric Dean <eric@crystalballinc.com>]

Agreed.  I'd like to see it incorporated.  Such a mechanism may solve some
TTL concerns regarding how a peer may stamp requests...especially if their
network is no longer operational.

On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Martin May wrote:

> Eric,
> 
> I think this is more relevant for the known mechanism draft
> 
> draft-cain-cdnp-known-request-routing-02
> 
> Martin
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-cdn@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-cdn@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> Eric Dean
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 10:56 PM
> To: Cain, Brad
> Cc: CDNP MList (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: new i-draft link
> 
> 
> 
> While there has been general consensus to use CNAMEs for internconnection,
> as used in section 2.2, there are also some operators that transpose the
> client's DNS server's IP address to the "Additional Section" and then make
> a recurise query to the peered network.  I'm not advocating it, I'm just
> stating it exists and within major vendor implementations.
> 
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Cain, Brad wrote:
> 
> >
> > A link to the new request routing requirements draft
> > is:
> >
> >
> http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-cain-request-routing-req-02.txt
> >
> >
> > -brad
> >
> > (all internet drafts can be found at www.ietf.org)
> >
> >
> 
> Eric Dean
> President, Crystal Ball Inc.
> W 703-322-8000
> F 703-322-8010
> M 703-597-6921
> 
> 
> 

Eric Dean
President, Crystal Ball Inc.
W 703-322-8000
F 703-322-8010 
M 703-597-6921