> One observation is that the delegation to CPE routers (home gateways) is
> contradictory to RFC6092:
>
> REC-8 By DEFAULT, inbound DNS queries received on exterior
>interfaces MUST NOT be processed by any integrated DNS
>resolving server.
>
> Not suggesting delegation
On 21 November 2012 15:01, Lee Howard wrote:
> You may remember this draft from a couple of years ago. People keep asking
> me what a residential ISP should do for IPv6 PTR records, and I keep
> repeating what's in the draft.
> The intent is to document existing solutions, since prepopulating PT
On 23 Nov 2012, at 11:28, Tony Finch wrote:
> Are name servers allowed to leave out the SOA record?
Yes. Though it depends on what the question was, which server you ask and what
data it has. RFC2308 lists some examples of valid NXDOMAIN/NODATA responses
containing no SOA record.
> It would b
On 2012-11-23, at 06:28, Tony Finch wrote:
> Joe Abley wrote:
>
>> I think you skipped a step -- you need to find the zone cut before you
>> can find the nameservers responsible for the zone. I guess I do that by
>> asking for blah.ip6.arpa/IN/SOA and checking the authority section, but
>> wha
John Levine wrote:
>
> Why do you think that a host that is not a server and will
> never be contacted by (non-malicious) other hosts needs a name?
Is there such a thing as a host that is not a server? Multicast DNS and
DNS-SD exist so that you can discover devices and services on your lan.
Tony
Joe Abley wrote:
>
> I think you skipped a step -- you need to find the zone cut before you
> can find the nameservers responsible for the zone. I guess I do that by
> asking for blah.ip6.arpa/IN/SOA and checking the authority section, but
> what if the authority section is empty because of softwa
Joe Abley wrote:
>
> If there was a possible solution where a customer device could
> auto-register a name using dynamic DNS, how would it know what
> nameservers to send the UPDATE messages to? Extract the MNAME from the
> closest-enclosing SOA? How do you find the closest-enclosing SOA,
> bearin
On Nov 22, 2012, at 10:37 PM, George Michaelson wrote:
> On 23/11/2012, at 1:18 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
>> On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:46 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> PS: If you were planning to say that with the magic of IPv6, everyone will
>>> be able to run servers on their home cable connection, don
On 23/11/2012, at 1:18 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:46 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> PS: If you were planning to say that with the magic of IPv6, everyone will
>> be able to run servers on their home cable connection, don't bother.
>
> Why not?
>
Because the lack of public IPv4
On Nov 22, 2012, at 8:46 PM, John Levine wrote:
> PS: If you were planning to say that with the magic of IPv6, everyone will
> be able to run servers on their home cable connection, don't bother.
Why not?
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://w
In message <20121123021341.2672.qm...@joyce.lan>, "John Levine" writes:
> >> Agreed. Why do you think that a host that is not a server and will
> >> never be contacted by (non-malicious) other hosts needs a name?
> >
> >Because servers out there won't allowing it access without a name.
> >I know
>> Agreed. Why do you think that a host that is not a server and will
>> never be contacted by (non-malicious) other hosts needs a name?
>
>Because servers out there won't allowing it access without a name.
>I know this is stupid but they exist.
Given a choice between rolling out complex and frag
In message <20121123014642.23974.qm...@joyce.lan>, "John Levine" writes:
> >And with IPv6 I would expect most homes *will* get dynamic forward zones.
>
> More likely no forward zones, since they serve no useful purpose.
>
> >IPv6 *is* a game changer and people are still rooted in IPv4 think.
>
>And with IPv6 I would expect most homes *will* get dynamic forward zones.
More likely no forward zones, since they serve no useful purpose.
>IPv6 *is* a game changer and people are still rooted in IPv4 think.
Agreed. Why do you think that a host that is not a server and will
never be contacted
In message <30776e96-c575-4fde-899c-fdc8441c5...@icann.org>, Joe Abley writes:
>
> On 2012-11-22, at 18:10, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > Individual hosts should be doing dynamic DNS. Where that update
> > is sent to may change but all machines should be doing it and should
> > support TSIG as a m
On 2012-11-22, at 18:10, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Individual hosts should be doing dynamic DNS. Where that update
> is sent to may change but all machines should be doing it and should
> support TSIG as a minimum.
The missing pieces here include:
- what sane ISP/campus/home network/hotspot oper
In message , Joe Abley writes:
> Hi Lee,
>
> Some comments below, based on a fairly cursory skim through (so, I may well h
> ave missed and/or understood things).
>
> 2.2 Wildcard match
>
> There is no mention of the issue of uniqueness. What do you do when you have
> five thousand different c
On Nov 22, 2012, at 2:07 PM, Joe Abley
wrote:
> This approach would leave a single nameserver responsible for a delegation,
> which is contrary to general best practice. Quite possibly that's a
> reasonable trade-off in this case (poor link quality affecting DNS resolution
> would also affect
Hi Lee,
Some comments below, based on a fairly cursory skim through (so, I may well
have missed and/or understood things).
2.2 Wildcard match
There is no mention of the issue of uniqueness. What do you do when you have
five thousand different customers who all attempt secure dynamic updates wi
Hi,
On 11/21/2012 9:28 PM, Jim Reid wrote:
>
> On 21 Nov 2012, at 18:07, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>> network operators should provide PTR RR's for specific addresses which
>> have real names. the inability due to IPv6's richness of address space
>> to provide auto-naming for PTR's does not to me, a
On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Nov 21, 2012, at 10:01 AM, Lee Howard
> wrote:
>> Since it's been
>> a while, and the operator community is still asking for guidance, I've
>> updated it, and would like a renewed review of it as an individual
>> submission (unless this WG or v
On 2012-11-21 6:44 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:07:23PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
>> consumer grade and business grade internet connections. since consumer
>> grade connectees should really not be connecting to SMTP servers on
>> other networks
> I do not accept this premi
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:07:23PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
> consumer grade and business grade internet connections. since consumer
> grade connectees should really not be connecting to SMTP servers on
> other networks
I do not accept this premise, and I don't see any argument in favour
of it. W
On 21 Nov 2012, at 18:07, Paul Vixie wrote:
> network operators should provide PTR RR's for specific addresses which
> have real names. the inability due to IPv6's richness of address space
> to provide auto-naming for PTR's does not to me, a problem statement make.
+1
On 2012-11-21 4:44 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> ... Aside from this quibble, I think the document is useful and should
> be published.
my quibble is different. ipv6 is bringing some tough love to the
consumer-facing edge. the fact that ISP's auto-populated the IPv4 PTR
tree made it impossible for mail s
On Nov 21, 2012, at 10:01 AM, Lee Howard
wrote:
> Since it's been
> a while, and the operator community is still asking for guidance, I've
> updated it, and would like a renewed review of it as an individual
> submission (unless this WG or v6ops wants it).
The document looks pretty good to me, e
You may remember this draft from a couple of years ago. People keep asking
me what a residential ISP should do for IPv6 PTR records, and I keep
repeating what's in the draft.
The intent is to document existing solutions, since prepopulating PTRs like
we did in IPv4 doesn't work. Last time I broug
27 matches
Mail list logo
