Hello,
Sorry for the long delay. I've been overwhelmed by some other things...
At Sat, 29 Mar 2008 00:46:57 -0400,
Brian Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As a meta (and most substantial) level, this version still doesn't
> > answer the fundamental question I asked a year ago: "why *should
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 09:05:25AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> > There really is only one solution to preventing "bogus"
> > traffic reaching the root servers and that is to run a local
> > copy of the root zone.
>
> er, it (the bogus ttraffic) still reaches the root.
>
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 09:05:25AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> There really is only one solution to preventing "bogus"
> traffic reaching the root servers and that is to run a local
> copy of the root zone.
er, it (the bogus ttraffic) still reaches the root.
j
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 07:25:53PM -0700, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> address. So, it's not "in use within a range, and referenced in a
> forward mapping". Does this mean this address is not covered by the
> above sentence of Section 4.2?
Right, it is not.
> > > or something else? In eithe
(My first attempt was moderated due to from address mismatch, so I'm
resending it fixing the address. Sorry for the duplicate)
Hello,
Sorry for the long delay. I've been overwhelmed by some other things...
At Sat, 29 Mar 2008 00:46:57 -0400,
Brian Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As a m
There really is only one solution to preventing "bogus"
traffic reaching the root servers and that is to run a local
copy of the root zone.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET:
still do... both
localhost.
1.0.0.127.in-addr.arpa.
::1.ip6.arpa. #
# yeah yeah... shoot me
--bill
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 10:48:45AM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote:
> At 12:19 +0200 4/3/08, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I may have missed this, but I'd like to h
Aww, I didn't do *that* great of a job taking notes, did I? I mean,
if you complain enough I won't be asked to do this again.
At 13:36 -0400 3/26/08, Edward Lewis wrote:
>Comments?
>
>DNSOP WG Minutes
>IETF 71 @ Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
>March 11, 2008
>
>1. WG Administration notes
>
>RFC
At 12:19 +0200 4/3/08, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I may have missed this, but I'd like to hear the lists opinion about
>this article:
>http://seclists.org/bugtraq/2008/Jan/0270.html
>that states that localhost entries in zones should be discouraged.
My problem with that doc is it says "uh, d
At 0:00 -0500 4/3/08, Joe Abley wrote:
>it's barely worth suggesting them. Call me cynical :-)
I agree with Paul and Andrew - it's not cynical. There's no registry
of "ersatz" domains so you'd never be sure you've covered them all
and without the registry there's no guarantee of uniqueness. (
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 12:00:11AM -0500, Joe Abley wrote:
> it's barely worth suggesting them. Call me cynical :-)
Or "on the money." Whichever fits :-)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1 503 667 4564 x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/
___
DN
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Abley) writes:
> I think that any proposal that involved adding delegations to the root
> zone, even if to prisoner and friends, and even if for such domains
> that are thought never to be candidates for conventional delegation
> ("txt", "local", etc.) would be so mire
Hi,
I may have missed this, but I'd like to hear the lists opinion about
this article:
http://seclists.org/bugtraq/2008/Jan/0270.html
that states that localhost entries in zones should be discouraged.
I know that localhost entries were encouraged in RFC 1537 but that one
is obsolted by RFC 1912 w
13 matches
Mail list logo
