[dns-wg] TLD delegation trade-offs

On Jun 13, 2005, at 16:29, Peter Koch wrote:

> Edward Lewis wrote:
>> Why not point to IP addresses?  For flexibility.  When I want to
>> renumber a name server, there's no need to update the parent's NS
>> copy of my set.  (Kinda like the DNSSEC need for the DS record.)
>
> So, Jim tells me that he likes to have dedicated names so he doesn't 
> have
> to change the delegation once the server's name changes and you argue 
> that
> renumbering is easier if just names are used (instead of IP adresses 
> or,
> to the same extent, per-zone server names and their necessary glue 
> records).
> I guess we can't have both. I'm with you.

Shame! :-)

Ed and I are both right. But one of us is more right than the other. :-)

The answer depends to some extent on whether the target of an NS record 
is the actual host name for the box or not. For Ed's they are. For my 
zones and servers, they're not. They're "aliases" as I try to keep 
names for services separated from the names of the hosts that provide 
those services. That way I can change one without affecting the other.

Now let me throw a spanner in the works: anycasting. There's a single A 
record for k.root-servers.net. But there are many instances of that IP 
address. I'd expect the NCC Ops people to have unique hostnames and IP 
addresses for each instance so they know which box to SSH to. These 
hostnames will of course be discrete from the name that's used for 
providing root DNS service. Or at least I hope these names are 
discrete...