RE: [NSI-RRP] IP Address Uniqueness

From: Hollenbeck, Scott (shollenb@netsol.com)
Date: Thu Jun 29 2000 - 19:45:17 EDT

  • Next message: Hollenbeck, Scott: "RE: [NSI-RRP] IP Address Uniqueness"

    Rick,

    Probably not at the protocol level, but there are already requirements in
    the draft for a registry to not produce A records for name servers
    registered in a TLD for which the registry is not authoritative.

    Scott Hollenbeck
    Network Solutions, Inc. Registry

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Rick H Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com]
    Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 7:36 PM
    To: Hollenbeck, Scott
    Cc: 'RRP List'
    Subject: Re: [NSI-RRP] IP Address Uniqueness

    Scott,

    I suspect there will also be no means to enforce any type of
    inter-registry uniqueness either.

    -rick

    On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:

    > Forwarded for Kent Crispin, who inadvertently sent his response to me
    alone.
    >
    > After considering today's discussion, I have to agree with those who
    suggest
    > that there is no technical reason to not allow an IP address to be used by
    > multiple name servers. The DNS does not have such a prohibition, so in
    the
    > interest of support for generic registration systems I think it makes
    sense
    > to not require uniqueness.
    >
    > Scott Hollenbeck
    > Network Solutions, Inc. Registry
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Kent Crispin [mailto:kent@songbird.com]
    > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 4:37 PM
    > To: Hollenbeck, Scott
    > Subject: Re: [NSI-RRP] IP Address Uniqueness
    >
    >
    > On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 08:55:06AM -0400, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
    > [...]
    > > Does anyone have any feelings on whether or not a generic protocol
    should
    > > allow an IP address to be shared among multiple server names? For
    > example,
    > > if a machine has two names such as ns1.example.com and foo.example.com
    > with
    > > IP address 198.1.2.3, should we allow registration of both
    ns1.example.com
    > > and foo.example.com with the same IP address?
    >
    > The NSI registry, or any registry, may choose to enforce such a
    > restriction, but I don't think it should be part of the protocol spec.
    > Perhaps you could include language to the effect that a registry MAY
    > enforce such a restriction, but even that seems a bit much to me. DNS
    > has no such technical limitation, and moreover, it seems to me
    > legitimately useful to be able to specify a role name like "ns.xxx.com",
    > and to be able to change the ip address underneath without worrying
    > about whether the name will suddenly choke in the registry.
    >
    > Kent
    >
    > --
    > Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
    > kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
    > ---------
    > See http://www.nsiregistry.com/maillist/rrp/
    > for message archives and subscription management information.
    >

    ---------
    See http://www.nsiregistry.com/maillist/rrp/
    for message archives and subscription management information.
    ---------
    See http://www.nsiregistry.com/maillist/rrp/
    for message archives and subscription management information.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 03 2000 - 13:38:52 EDT