Good morning, Ralf.
At 2016-07-20 13:07:01, "Ralf Weber" wrote:
>Moin!
>
>On 20 Jul 2016, at 5:03, 延志伟 wrote:
>
>> About the DDoS risk, it should not be worried so much because this
>> scheme is controlled/triggered by the recursive server (with a flag as
>> NN bit).
>> In other words, the rec
In message <236f5488-42d4-4a89-acab-b55fd2b57...@fl1ger.de>, "Ralf Weber"
writes:
> Moin!
>
> On 20 Jul 2016, at 5:03, wrote:
>
> > About the DDoS risk, it should not be worried so much because this
> > scheme is controlled/triggered by the recursive server (with a flag as
> > NN bit).
> > In ot
Moin!
On 20 Jul 2016, at 5:03, 延志伟 wrote:
About the DDoS risk, it should not be worried so much because this
scheme is controlled/triggered by the recursive server (with a flag as
NN bit).
In other words, the recursive server can get the piggybacked multiple
responses only when it wants and o
About the DDoS risk, it should not be worried so much because this scheme is
controlled/triggered by the recursive server (with a flag as NN bit).
In other words, the recursive server can get the piggybacked multiple responses
only when it wants and of cource it can disable this model anytime.
All
here are the draft minutes from Monday's meeting.
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-dnsop
We want to give a bit shout out to Paul Hoffman for putting these together.
If there are any changes you think need to be made, please let us know.
tim
DNS Operations (DNSOP) Wo
All,
Thanks for all the interest and feedback yesterday. I hope more of you will
have time to browse through the draft once things settle a bit. I look forward
to discussing it in more detail with anyone interested.
Thanks,
John
From: Woodworth, John
Sorry, this sort of response to queries.
On Jul 19, 2016 10:14, "Matthew Pounsett" wrote:
>
>
> On 19 July 2016 at 09:46, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
>> I thought the proposal specifically excluded support for this sort of
>> query in any case other than for queries from authoritative servers.
>>
>> I'm
On 19 July 2016 at 09:46, Ted Lemon wrote:
> I thought the proposal specifically excluded support for this sort of
> query in any case other than for queries from authoritative servers.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean about "this sort of query".There wouldn't
be any special query sent to recur
I thought the proposal specifically excluded support for this sort of query
in any case other than for queries from authoritative servers.
On Jul 19, 2016 09:37, "Matthew Pounsett" wrote:
>
>
> On 19 July 2016 at 09:19, Ralf Weber wrote:
>
>> Moin!
>>
>> On 19 Jul 2016, at 9:00, Christopher Mor
On 19 July 2016 at 09:19, Ralf Weber wrote:
> Moin!
>
> On 19 Jul 2016, at 9:00, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
> > On Jul 19, 2016 8:36 AM, "Ralf Weber" wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Except that if you have a decent size and hot Cache with refreshing
> >> these records will be in there anyway. IMHO you ga
Moin!
On 19 Jul 2016, at 9:00, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2016 8:36 AM, "Ralf Weber" wrote:
>>
>>
>> Except that if you have a decent size and hot Cache with refreshing
>> these records will be in there anyway. IMHO you gained nothing, but I
>> agree with Jim Reid that it would be go
On Jul 19, 2016 8:36 AM, "Ralf Weber" wrote:
>
>
> Except that if you have a decent size and hot Cache with refreshing
> these records will be in there anyway. IMHO you gained nothing, but I
> agree with Jim Reid that it would be good to have data on this.
Nothing except some DNS round trips.
How
12 matches
Mail list logo
