On 25Jan15, John Heidemann allegedly wrote:
I think these statements are both overly strong. They both suggest
that careful signaling is required before deploying DNS over TCP with
pipelining or
persistence.
If virtually no initiators send multiple requests then your conclusion
seems
TL;DR: i'd like to only behave differently if the other side signals its
readiness for it. in a big TCP model where thousands or tens of
thousands of sessions remain open while idle (even if only for a few
seconds), we are asking for application, library, kernel, RAM, CPU, and
firewall conditions
2 of 5 NSs look like lame delegations.
% dnsq a tools.ietf.org ns0.amsl.com
1 tools.ietf.org:
156 bytes, 1+0+5+0 records, response, noerror
query: 1 tools.ietf.org
authority: tools.ietf.org 1800 NS grenache.levkowetz.com
authority: tools.ietf.org 1800 NS merlot.levkowetz.com
authority:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 09:44:24 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 54c40d28.7050...@redbarn.org, Paul Vixie writes:
Mark Andrews mailto:ma...@isc.org
Thursday, January 22, 2015 6:29 PM
In message 32707.1421975...@dash.isi.edu, John Heidemann writes:
...
I'm confused. I thought we
Hi,
Below I show a trivial amount of work for compliance with
draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names by caching
recursive resolvers which have implemented Response
Policy Zones (i.e BIND and numerous others). I am not
claiming that this is the best solution, or that it
is the best way to do
You don't need rpz to solve the privacy problem. A local copy of
the root zone does that. It also solves the leaked unqualified
names problem.
Mark
masters f.root-servers.net { 192.5.5.241; 2001:500:2f::f; };
zone . {
type slave;
masters { f.root-servers.net; };
file
Christian Grothoff mailto:christ...@grothoff.org
Sunday, January 25, 2015 12:29 PM
...
Furthermore, while we expect this to be rare in the first place, people
voiced concern about the additional traffic at the root zone from the
pTLDs, so using this configuration we can make sure that
Ted Lemon mailto:ted.le...@nominum.com
Sunday, January 25, 2015 12:30 PM
Paul Vixie mailto:p...@redbarn.org
Sunday, January 25, 2015 12:15 PM
Hugo Maxwell Connery mailto:h...@env.dtu.dk
Sunday, January 25, 2015 5:32 AM
Hi,
Below I show a trivial amount of work for compliance with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 01/25/2015 09:01 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
get the IETF to recommend to IANA that these names be reserved
*** Yes indeed. Can we get back to the draft-04? It sure will bring up
some interesting if not controversial comments, as some parts
Tony Finch mailto:d...@dotat.at
Saturday, January 24, 2015 5:09 PM
Sorry, I was being too terse. I meant extra latency due to the time taken
to transmit all that redundant data.
isn't that what transport encoding of deflate is meant for?
--
Paul Vixie
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 12:15:53PM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote:
queries would all be answered with NXDOMAIN). my question is: why do
this, rather than passing a law (adopting an RFC) that reserves these
names within the IANA system, such that the NXDOMAIN source can reliably
be the IANA root name
On 01/25/2015 09:15 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: my question is: why do this,
rather than passing a law (adopting an
RFC) that reserves these names within the IANA system, such that the
NXDOMAIN
source can reliably be the IANA root name servers?
Dear Paul,
We are also trying to pass that law, and as
Hugo Maxwell Connery mailto:h...@env.dtu.dk
Sunday, January 25, 2015 5:32 AM
Hi,
Below I show a trivial amount of work for compliance with
draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names by caching
recursive resolvers which have implemented Response
Policy Zones (i.e BIND and numerous others).
On Jan 25, 2015, at 3:15 PM, Paul Vixie p...@redbarn.org wrote:
sadly, i remain unaware of any non-BIND implementation of RPZ. if there are
any, please tell us, so that we can update thehttps://dnsrpz.info/ web site.
Nominum offers a similar feature in our caching nameservers, unless I am
14 matches
Mail list logo
