Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 06:48:21 -0700
From: Todd Glassey tglas...@earthlink.net
Actually Dean - good point - the MOU was never codified in a formal
contract meaning that the US Department of Commerce still formally owns
the root's and so under this newly proposed cyber-control law would
-Original Message-
From: dnsop-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Mark
Andrews
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 9:53 PM
To: Doug Barton
Cc: dnsop
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Draft on rDNS for IPv6: draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-00
Windows already attempts to do
-Original Message-
From: dnsop-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Douglas
Otis
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 2:18 PM
To: Doug Barton
Cc: dnsop; Shane Kerr
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Draft on rDNS for IPv6: draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-00
Saying IPv6 reverse
Dean Anderson wrote:
BTW, RFC2870 is not the authority on root server operations. The
authority is found in the MoU with ICANN that root server operators are
supposed to sign. Rumor has it that many root server operaters haven't
signed the MoU, defying ICANN's authority over their operation.
On Sep 3, 2009, at 11:58 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
Education needed: how do you tell a residential user what server
will accept their dynamic PTR updates?
I think this is an unnecessarily difficult answer. Maintaining the
zones at the ISP is a recipe for DoS attacks, bad configuration, angry
At 16:08 -0400 9/3/09, Lee Howard wrote:
You can AXFR, or you can use the same algorithm:
That's the issue, keeping the zone's contents coherent (AXFR) or the
zone's synthesis coherent (copying the algorithm from A to B).
generate on the fly--seems to be common practice already. It
-Original Message-
From: dnsop-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Edward
Lewis
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 12:07 PM
To: Lee Howard
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org; 'Edward Lewis'
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Dynamically Generated PTR, was Re: ... rDNS for
IPv6...
Dean Anderson wrote:
Todd is right. While I rather doubt that the USG /would/ shut down the
roots or ARIN (thats pretty extreme), I believe the objective of the
bill is to make explicit and indisputable USG control over
infrastructure. As I understand it, the objective of the bill is so that
the
Lee Howard wrote:
1) Zone transfers?
Is this a requirement for IP6.ARPA zones used for residential users?
Even if it were, you can use notify and IXFR.
But, as availability of dynamic update of DNS is not very high
(there is only one master server), don't mind so many 9s.
2) Dynamic update?
In message 002701ca2caf$549d3bd0$fdd7b3...@org, Lee Howard writes:
-Original Message-
From: dnsop-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Mark
Andrews
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 9:53 PM
To: Doug Barton
Cc: dnsop
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Draft on
In message e2dcddf0-5aba-4bb0-aaff-0113cea4a...@nominum.com, Ted Lemon writes
:
On Sep 3, 2009, at 11:58 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
Education needed: how do you tell a residential user what server
will accept their dynamic PTR updates?
I think this is an unnecessarily difficult answer.
11 matches
Mail list logo
