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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 03 2000 - 13:38:53 EDT