[dns-wg] [Fwd: [centr-fm] Re: IANA TLD delegation issue]

What I find interesting is the trade-off of:

The gain in packet compression by using similar names plus the 
operational advantage of streamlining the names

vs

The gain by spreading name server names under other TLDs plus the 
logging convenience of only needing one PTR record per address

1) Compression to insert more name servers or more glue records into 
a response is an advantage that I think is becoming outdated.  With 
anycast, there is no longer a need to have a name per name server. 
(Still, a target of about a half-dozen names in the NS set is better 
than less.)  Also, with fewer names listed, there are fewer names to 
resolve just to get the name server set.  (Not all implementations 
will resolve all the names, but large-market-share ones do.)

2) Operational gains of having similar names is a good thing, but at 
what cost and for what gain.  It would be good to be able to quickly 
ping all the names with a simple shell script from the top of your 
head.  But what if you misread a problem report and debug 
e.ext.nic.tld instead of e.int.nic.tld or e.nic.tld.?

3) I would think that having servers listed under other TLDs (as we 
are looking at a ccTLD here) would be a good thing.  Just for the 
fact that we are spreading the servers about (in DNS, not just 
topology).  In addition, these servers don't count against the glue 
space hit in the response.

4) Multiple name per address is one of those topics that gets bashed 
back and forth.  At times we find it distasteful to have multiple PTR 
records in a set, for instance, this makes traceroutes and logs list 
potentially "wrong" names.  Other times we are reminded that it is 
perfectly natural to allow more than one PTR record in a set.  Maybe 
this is a "it's good for servers but not good for routers" situation.

The part of the trade-off I haven't addressed is:

The gain by using unique name server names for each delegation

vs

The need for extra IP addresses in light of a one name per address policy

I think we want to allow there to be unique names for name servers so 
that changes to one delegation do not impact another.  I think it is 
also good not to waste addresses, using them as needed only, which is 
also possible if the policy of one name-one address is dropped.  (I 
think it is, I'm just supporting a reason to do so.)

Nevertheless, what I've debated above doesn't seem to be the point of 
the document.  It seems the document is presenting discomfort with 
the response.  Here I merely tried to detail the technical points, 
and not get into the response.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying.