On 31/05/11 09:28, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
This problem could be avoided by providing the same data, but differently
sorted, correct?
On 31.05.11 12:27, Phil Mayers wrote:
Not really. Client side sorting may take place (e.g. to comply with RFC
3484 policies in calls to getaddrinfo)
On 31/05/11 09:28, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
This problem could be avoided by providing the same data, but differently
sorted, correct?
On 31.05.11 12:27, Phil Mayers wrote:
Not really. Client side sorting may take place (e.g. to comply with RFC
3484 policies in calls to getaddrinfo)
On 5/31/2011 7:39 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
It is still a bad idea. Fixing the clients so they work well with
multi-homed servers not only works today with mostly IPv4 servers
but also works well with dual stack server and IPv6 only servers.
You don't have to have artifially low TTLs on the DNS
On 01/06/11 08:11, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 31/05/11 09:28, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
This problem could be avoided by providing the same data, but differently
sorted, correct?
On 31.05.11 12:27, Phil Mayers wrote:
Not really. Client side sorting may take place (e.g. to comply
In message 4de43e3e.2040...@chrysler.com, Kevin Darcy writes:
Normally I'd defer to your vastly greater knowledge and experience in
DNSSEC, but here in the U.S. we have a saying I'm from Missouri, which
is a roundabout way of expressing show me (Show Me being the
unofficial slogan of
On 31/05/11 09:28, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
This problem could be avoided by providing the same data, but differently
sorted, correct?
Not really. Client side sorting may take place (e.g. to comply with RFC
3484 policies in calls to getaddrinfo) and destroy any server-side sorting.
On 30.05.11 05:12, Maren S. Leizaola wrote:
DNS-Racing is a method of load balancing access to servers which are
multi homed and provides lowest latency access to users and network
resilience to ISP/routing failure.
like, RRset sorting?
**What does it do?*
It permits a server which is
Hello,
I am reading this mailing as a digest so sorry for the late
replies. Firstly we have been using this method for over 4 years and
I've yet not had one person tell me that they can connect to our servers
using POP3, SMPT, IMAP or WEB.
1. Mark, Regarding Chrome, my last big
It is still a bad idea. Fixing the clients so they work well with
multi-homed servers not only works today with mostly IPv4 servers
but also works well with dual stack server and IPv6 only servers.
You don't have to have artifially low TTLs on the DNS responses.
You get sub-second failover on
In message 4de42bef.3050...@chrysler.com, Kevin Darcy writes:
Get back to us when you prove that this co-exists with DNSSEC; otherwise
it's a non-starter. While you're at it, some data proving that this
actually enhances performance or availability would be nice too.
On further examination
Normally I'd defer to your vastly greater knowledge and experience in
DNSSEC, but here in the U.S. we have a saying I'm from Missouri, which
is a roundabout way of expressing show me (Show Me being the
unofficial slogan of the state of Missouri). Maybe it *should* work, but
when it comes to
In message 4de43e3e.2040...@chrysler.com, Kevin Darcy writes:
Normally I'd defer to your vastly greater knowledge and experience in
DNSSEC, but here in the U.S. we have a saying I'm from Missouri, which
is a roundabout way of expressing show me (Show Me being the
unofficial slogan of the
On 5/29/2011 5:12 PM, Maren S. Leizaola wrote:
IT is a poor man’s replacement for BGP multihoming and IP anycast.
Hey it is Free and you can implement it using BIND.
And you've just broken DNSSEC.
AlanC
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
And if people used happy-eyeballs[1] or similar[2] in the applications
this would not be needed. Chrome already does this with their
latest browser. It uses a 300ms timer to switch to the next address.
Happy-eyeballs was primarially written to deal with broken 6to4
links but the techniques are
Warren Kumari
--
Please excuse typing, etc -- This was sent from a device with a tiny keyboard.
On May 29, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Alan Clegg acl...@isc.org wrote:
On 5/29/2011 5:12 PM, Maren S. Leizaola wrote:
IT is a poor man’s replacement for BGP multihoming and IP anycast.
Hey it is
In message 2c591af8-860d-45a5-9f3a-3603f3733...@kumari.net, Warren Kumari
writes:
Um, how?
Surely you can just sign the responses, same as any others?
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but this just looks like normal
DNS LB...
W
It depends on who is doing the modification.
Warren Kumari
--
Please excuse typing, etc -- This was sent from a device with a tiny keyboard.
On May 29, 2011, at 9:32 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 2c591af8-860d-45a5-9f3a-3603f3733...@kumari.net, Warren Kumari
writes:
Um, how?
Surely you can just sign the
17 matches
Mail list logo
