> As I've watched this whole discussion develop, I've been thinking > "why are people so polarized over having the DNS server software > packages ship with a default config file that limits leakage of RFC > 1918 addresses?"
There may have been some confusion about the meaning of "default". When I hear that word, I assume we're talking about the default behavior of the name server--what it does when the behavior is not specified in the config file. Changing that sort of thing has alarming and unexpected effects on people who schlep their existing named.conf files onto new systems and expect them to keep working, and so it should only be undertaken cautiously, and it's natural that you'd get pushback. Shipping with a default config file, which *overrides* the system defaults in some socially-appropriate manner, is totally different. I'd be a lot more open to that, personally. -- Evan Hunt -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
