Re: [DNSOP] Re: AS112 for TLDs

2007-12-28 Thread Florian Weimer
* Mark Andrews: It's been done. IT DOES NOT WORK. named has code to prevent the records being added because IT DOES NOT WORK and we got sick and tired of telling people who ran up against sites that did it that IT DOES NOT WORK. The seem to work reasonably well for

Re: [DNSOP] Re: AS112 for TLDs

2007-12-05 Thread Mark Andrews
Mark Andrews wrote: It's been done. IT DOES NOT WORK. named has code to prevent the records being added because IT DOES NOT WORK and we got sick and tired of telling people who ran up against sites that did it that IT DOES NOT WORK. It's better to prevent than

Re: [DNSOP] Re: AS112 for TLDs

2007-12-05 Thread Edward Lewis
At 11:40 -0500 12/5/07, Joe Baptista wrote: experiment. I have found some servers that do *. NS - or so i'm told... ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc4592.txt See sections 4.2 and 4.2.1. for comments on this idea. --

Re: [DNSOP] Re: AS112 for TLDs

2007-12-05 Thread Paul Vixie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Baptista) writes: No it can't be done with BIND. Very lame. It would be a big asset to root technology of the entire *. wildcard TLD label could be pointed to AS112. AS112 is truly the blackhole of this universe we call the internet. AS112 - the internet garbage

Re: [DNSOP] Re: AS112 for TLDs

2007-12-05 Thread Mark Andrews
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --070503020104070709050909 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark Andrews wrote: Actually no. That is not correct. I did some experimentation using BIND 8 and 9 as root

Re: [DNSOP] Re: AS112 for TLDs

2007-12-05 Thread Joe Baptista
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 02:28:53AM +0100, Mohsen Souissi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 25 lines which said: OK for the first querie, but as the referal to AS112 NS's will lead to a lame delegation If the AS112 servers' configuration is not

Re: [DNSOP] Re: AS112 for TLDs

2007-12-05 Thread Joe Baptista
Mark Andrews wrote: Actually no. That is not correct. I did some experimentation using BIND 8 and 9 as root servers. BIND 8 does not support *. CNAME some.host.name. Actually all versions of BIND support * CNAME. Sorry - your right - its DNAME it does not do. But

Re: [DNSOP] Re: AS112 for TLDs

2007-12-05 Thread Mark Andrews
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --020009050009010201030606 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Paul Vixie wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Baptista) writes: No it can't be done with BIND. Very lame.

Re: [DNSOP] Re: AS112 for TLDs

2007-12-05 Thread Mark Andrews
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --080203070704010404050306 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 02:28:53AM +0100, Mohsen Souissi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote

Re: [DNSOP] Re: AS112 for TLDs

2007-12-04 Thread William F. Maton Sotomayor
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Mark Andrews wrote: Since AS112 is part of the Root Server Technical Operations Assn, then getting the root server operators to provide feedback to AS112 (and I guess someone arranging for the delegation thereof) of what junk zones need to be dealt with makes sense. I don't