RE: [Asrg] Re: RMX evaluation

["Tom Thomson" <tthomson@neosinteractive.com>]

> The advantage of Paul Vixie's proposal is, that it doesn't require
> a new DNS RR type. 
> 
> The disadvantage is, that it is error prone and takes a high overhead:
> 
> There are providers who provide services for 20..2,000,000 domains. 
> Since in this proposal the domain zone tables must list every single
> mail relay, all zone tables must be updated if the provider installs
> an additional relay. If the provider does have access to the zone
> tables, this is just a heap of work. If the provider does not have
> access to the zone tables, then it is a severe overhead and delay
> to inform all the domain owners and ask them to update their tables.
> When writing your domain table, you need a detailed list of the 
> relays your provider has. At least you need to know the number of
> relays. In reality, it would certainly look like this:
> 
> .. MX  relay0.provider.com
>        relay1.provider.com
>        relay2.provider.com
> 
> But you will always have to update the list if the provider uses
> one more relay than you have listed. 
> 
> That's why RMX uses an indirection step through the provider's 
> APL records. It's a design criterion to avoid this overhead and
> delay.

Wouldn't it be fairly easy to overcome this problem pretty trivially?

For example 
	- allow wild card characters in the record, or
	- specify the containing domain rather than the fully qualified name, or
	- use the same indirection as the RMX proposal

Tom

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg