IETF Logo Mail Archive

RFC 3484 section 6 rule 9 causing more operational problems

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Wed, 04 March 2009 14:08 UTC

Return-Path: <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FF6828C1A8 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 06:08:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.324
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.324 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.275, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DS4X6cml2CVu for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 06:08:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-5.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-5.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EEE328C1A1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 06:08:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:53969) by ppsw-5.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.155]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1Lermk-0005Iq-HH (Exim 4.70) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:09:22 +0000
Received: from fanf2 (helo=localhost) by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local-esmtp id 1Lermk-00043z-Ax (Exim 4.67) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:09:22 +0000
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:09:22 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: ietf@ietf.org, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RFC 3484 section 6 rule 9 causing more operational problems
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.0903041400220.8701@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: Tony Finch <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:08:59 -0000

It seems that Vista implements RFC 3484 address selection, including the
requirement to sort IP addresses. This breaks a great deal of operational
dependence on DNS-based load balancing, as well as being based on an
incorrect understanding of how IP addresses are allocated.

RFC 3484 needs to be updated to delete this rule, so that the order
returned from the DNS is honoured when the client has no better knowledge
about which address is appropriate.

See
http://drplokta.livejournal.com/109267.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg51874.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/discuss/current/msg01035.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05847.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2007/11/msg00029.html

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS.
MODERATE OR GOOD.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email