[dns-wg] TLD delegation trade-offs

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Mohsen Souissi wrote:

> Bill & all,
>
>  On 07 Jun, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>  | > of wasteful usage of IPv4 address space: the /8s that Stanford and MIT
>  | > have for instance.
>  |
>  | 	er... MIT & MERIT... stanford returned theirs years ago...
>  |
>  | 	now if i understood Ed, both he and you are tangentially
>  | 	arguing for in-baliwick glue.  why was this considered such
>  | 	bad practice last decade, but now seems to be not only
>  | 	prefered but the only choice for right-thinking people?
>
> ==> I don't think anybody expressed the "in-baliwick glue" as "the
> only choice for right-thinking people" nor do I think that anybody was
> trying to show people how to "right-think" about NS's naming for a
> TLD delegation...
>
> The name compression technique which maybe was considered as "a bad
> practice" a decade ago has become more popular for the last 3-5
> years. Btw I don't think this technique is "outdated" today as Ed said
> since the alternative he mentioned (Anycast) is not widely deployed
> yet by TLDs (only a few TLDs are anycast today and still some
> political and technical issues to be solved... Just think for instance
> at IPv6 allocation policy which does't allow yet TLDs in the RIPE
> region to get an "unfiltered" block... Yes I know, a new proposal is
> underway to be adopted by the RIPE address-policy wg...). IMHO, the
> name compression popularity relies on two facts today:
>
> - it addresses and  mitigates new technical issues which didn't use to
>   occurr frequently a decade ago, such as riskk of glue dropping due
>   to new "greedy" RRs such as AAAA or DNSSEC-related RRs. So
>   compression may save a large amount of bytes which may be
>   transformed in a new NS deployment (icluding its A/AAAA glues);
>
> - TLDs which are not yet deploying DNS anycast are endeavouring to get
>   a suitable level of redundancy and load distribution among their
>   deployed NS's. As the number of deployed NS's grows, it becomes very
>   practical and interesting to have a naming plan easing the
>   readability and consequently the operation of name service...
>
> Hence, it is seen by a number of TLDs today that name compression is a
> good and workable technique, in the absence of a better technique (yet
> to be easily deployable)...

Just my .02 euro:

Using glue (or to use a redundant term: in-bailiwick glue) helps to avoid
dependency loops as well. ie: example.com nameservers exist under
example.net and vice versa. IMHO a good thing.

Roy