My dayjob supports this as well and has been running resolvers with similar functionality implemented for a while now. We are looking to switch to edns-clent-subnet once it is standardized and have been approached by parties willing to invest in development.
Peter On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Mark Delany <[email protected]> wrote: > On 24Dec14, Mark Delany allegedly wrote: > > > The draft is available here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vandergaast-dnsop-edns-client-subnet/ > > > > a) 6.2 - Intent of SCOPE NETMASK > > > > "In both cases, the value of the SCOPE NETMASK in the reply has strong > > implications with regard to how the reply will be cached" > > > > I wonder whether SCOPE NETMASK should have a bigger impact beyond how > > the reply is cached? > > Tap tap tap. Is this thing turned on? > > I think 3-4 people made some well-considered feedback on this draft, > but there has been zero discussion or author feedback for some six > weeks now. > > Does that mean there is insufficient interest in progressing this draft? > > I ask because in my dayjob we've been recently approached by some > large eyeball providers who are now willing to invest in upgrading > their resolver infrastructure to support client-subnet now that they > see the benefits. > > It'd be a pity if this died on the vine just as others are starting to > come around to the idea. > > > Mark. > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
