RE: Multihoming by IP Layer Address Rewriting (MILAR)

[Ramakrishna Gummadi <ramki@cs.berkeley.edu>]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, RJ Atkinson wrote:

> At 16:00 04/09/01, Ramakrishna Gummadi wrote:
> >I don't think that we should create a dependency between routing (even if
> >it is for multihoming) and DNS that can be hurt by these kinds of
> >misconfigurations, even if we assume that every internet device is
> >required (which I think is impossible to do for various reasons,
> >including non-technical) to be hosted in DNS.
>
>         We've already got that dependency.
>
>         Folks depend on www.cnn.com resolving to the right
> load-balancer's IP address so that routing goes to the right place.

I think it is important to distinguish between performance and
correctness; the load-balancer should just "work", it need not (and,
sometimes, is not) be "optimum".

> If DNS is really so broken that it is a crisis right now, then
> we should defer multi6 work to fix that first, IMHO.

While all indications are that the quality of DNS today is bad, it
"works", so people aren't too concerned about it:
http://www.psg.com/~randy/960303.iepg

I think it is the job another working group (dnsop) to make sure it does
not break (this means that it is a good idea to bounce any DNS-based ideas
on the dnsop mailing list).

regards,
-ramki