At 12:47 +0000 2/19/07, Jim Reid wrote:
On Feb 19, 2007, at 11:56, Edward Lewis wrote:
At 11:34 +0000 2/19/07, Jim Reid wrote:
I fail to see how changing -- I'd say defining -- the default behaviour of
a name server in this way could possibly be a protocol issue.
Being that the name server is the speaker of the protocol, that is
true definition of the protocol, not the document. Setting a default
behavior is
effectively setting the basic form of the protocol.
ISTR 40-60% of root server traffic would go away if people using
1918 addressing configured their name servers properly.
I would have thought that this would be cleaned up by BCP38 (or so).
IMO this WG shouldn't wash its hands of this problem, claiming its a protocol
issue and not an operational one. Which is what you appear to suggesting Ed.
I hope not.
It isn't a protocol issue, which is why I'm questioning changes to
the configuration of the protocol elements.
I haven't been convinced that this is an operational issue either,
other than being what I'd label a mistake.
First let's talk about whether it is a problem to have RFC 1918 space
exposed as an address for a nameserver.
It is.
I don't want to seem as leveling an insult, but this sort of response
is just what is wrong with the level of discourse in the IETF.
Claiming it is a problem is not convincing to someone like me that
does not see the problem.
Second, let's talk about the severity, and is there some real threat to
others if someone does this.
There is.
Ditto.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar
"Two years ago you said we had 5-7 years, now you are saying 3-5. What I
need from you is a consistent story..."
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
