Christian Huitema huit...@huitema.net writes:
On any other topic I would agree. Breaking DNS should be one of the
things to worry about.
Maybe we should make the distinction between stub resolver and
iterative resolver part of the architecture. This would be very much
the same split as
Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org writes:
That approach is what dual-stack IPv4+IPv6 applications did before
people realized defining fails is non-trivial and came up with the
happy eyeballs approach to let the quickest path win, and not bother
waiting for the fail to be determined.
And if
On any other topic I would agree. Breaking DNS should be one of the
things to worry about.
Maybe we should make the distinction between stub resolver and iterative
resolver part of the architecture. This would be very much the same split as
between an mail client and an e-mail server. Email
On 05/14/2015 09:25 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
We, like I suspect every other DNS vendor, expect garbage to appear on
the port / socket having had 1/4 of a century of attempts to break
into machines over DNS behind us. We really should stop worrying about
DNS servers falling over when something
In message
CADC+-gTgbRQ=vjm8kf23_d+jdvyhi6ndgrxohbdbaj6vfh1...@mail.gmail.com, Doug
Royer writes:
Firewall issue:
We can't live in fear that only a handful of ports are forever usable
because of busted firewalls or busted firewall administrators.
I think the decision should be based on
On May 13, 2015, at 3:52 AM, Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.org wrote:
Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org writes:
Having two parallel mechanisms for a latency-sensitive protocol leads to
the necessity of doing a happy eyeballs approach in implementation to
decrease latency.
That's only
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Doug Royer douglasro...@gmail.com wrote:
Firewall issue:
We can't live in fear that only a handful of ports are forever usable
because of busted firewalls or busted firewall administrators.
I think the decision should be based on what's best for DNS.
I
