Just a thought, below:
On 14/06/13 2:41, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> In message <51b9fb6a.1090...@tiggee.com>,
> David Miller <dmil...@tiggee.com> wrote:
>
>> This could lead to wrong headed statements like, "Yes, we sent X GB of
>> traffic at your network.
> Yes.
>
> Last night I reconsidered at some length the scheme I put forward yesterday.
> (Please note that I am very deliberately calling it merely a "scheme"
> rather than a "proposal", because I do not think that it rises to the
> level of that honorable title yet.)
>
> Basically, please ignore everything I put forward yesterday and substitute
> instead the following in place of all that...
>
> 1) A new DNS/UDP packet/message type is defined. This new message
> when sent from from machine A to machine B informs B that A would
> really really appreciate it if B would cease and desist from sending
> anything other than HIGHLY ABBREVIATED (12 byte) UDP DNS response
> packets to the IP address of A for a period of 30 seconds. (Said
> highly abbreviated DNS/UDP response packets would all have the TC
> bit set.)
>
> In a hypothetical revised future DNS RFC it would be said that all
> DNS servers attached to the public internet MUST be capable of
> properly receiving, decoding and obeying any and all such client
> requests.
>
I wonder what DNS-servers running older versions of the SW will respond
to that? If they silently discard the packet, no problem. If however
they respond with refused or anything else, you create your own storm.
--
Best regards
Sten Carlsen
No improvements come from shouting:
"MALE BOVINE MANURE!!!"
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
