On May 16, 2012, at 6:16 PM, paul vixie wrote: > On 5/17/2012 12:07 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> On May 15, 2012, at 11:04 PM, paul vixie wrote: >>> now that i've been reminded that the SOA timers are shorter than the >>> update frequency and that no NOTIFY is required for up-to-date stealth >>> slave service; and now that the root is signed, making it unlikely that >>> stealth copies will be amended or that their namespaces will be >>> overloaded with other stealth slaves... i agree with drc here. let's >>> start encouraging widespread stealth slavery for the root zone. >> I'm deeply confused by the threads that followed this proposal. It seems >> that the problem is "some ISP's recursive resolvers have not great >> connections to a local root server". > > no. that's not the problem.
Whoops, sorry. From your post, that is what the problem seemed like. > the problem is, people want to do this, and there's no stopping them, so > we should roll with it. encourage it, describe the best practices, make > measurement and telemetry work, etc. (note, i'm not going to go into why > people want this, or whether they should want this.) Well, why didn't you say so? :-) Just to put a stake in the ground, is this the problem statement people agree with: Some ISPs want to act like root servers, so the root server operators should help those ISPs do so. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations dns-jobs mailing list https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs
