Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 04:36:32PM -0400, Adam Vallee wrote a message of 114 lines which said: > DoH and DoT have only become a thing since GDPR. Why is no one > saying anything? Are you serious? A lot of electrons are moved around DoH. Many articles (most of them wrong). You certainly

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

Adam, On Oct 11, 2019, at 12:36 AM, Adam Vallee wrote: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:40 AM David Conrad > wrote: > Adam, > > I’d recommend reading "A Proposed Governance Model for the DNS Root Server > System”

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

> On Oct 11, 2019, at 2:21 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: > > i think there are 13 names each having an A and an . so, 26 candidate > addresses. most resolvers will try them all and home in on the one with the > lowest RTT. if one of the 13 it tries via IPv6 doesn't answer, it won't > affect

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 9:00 PM Joe Abley wrote: > On 11 Oct 2019, at 14:21, Paul Vixie wrote: > > > in the earlier days of DNS-OARC (where dnsviz migrated to recently), > there was a server at cogent, which was not reachable over IPv6 from users > are hurricane. i don't remember anybody

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

Viktor Dukhovni wrote on 2019-10-10 17:51: ... It has perhaps not been as well known as it deserves to be. Perhaps additional publicity here (and any other relevant fora), might nudge the parties closer to a resolution. The non-reachability of the IPv6 C root from a significant portion of

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

Arsen STASIC: * Viktor Dukhovni [2019-10-10 20:51 (-0400)]: On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 06:25:41PM -0400, Matthew Pounsett wrote: The speculation I've seen is that Cogent refuses to treat HE as a Tier1 network in v6 because they don't try to also be one in v4, but that they should because

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 4:12 PM Warren Kumari wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 9:00 PM Joe Abley wrote: > >> >> What some people are seeing in this thread as a problem is actually a >> nice demonstration that the system as a whole is immune to damage due to >> partial-table peering

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

* Viktor Dukhovni [2019-10-10 20:51 (-0400)]: On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 06:25:41PM -0400, Matthew Pounsett wrote: The speculation I've seen is that Cogent refuses to treat HE as a Tier1 network in v6 because they don't try to also be one in v4, but that they should because HE's v6 network is

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

> The speculation I've seen is that Cogent refuses to treat HE as a Tier1 > network in v6 because they don't try to also be one in v4 s/try to be/are not/ for cogent, v6 and v4 are parity > but that they should because HE's v6 network is much wider reaching > and much longer established than