Paul Vixie (vixie) writes:
though asullivan's answer (it depends) is probably more accurate. t-m
has in the past said that he wants IETF to standardize encumbered IPR so
that he can make money from license fees paid by people who deploy it. i
think that's offensive screwheadedness and i am
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (bmanning) writes:
actually, the key point here is that apparently a number of
(good) people are avoiding the IETF process because they
believe their ideas, intended to be partof open standards
development, are being patented by others and then used
Pekka Savola (pekkas) writes:
Thanks for the interesting link. This certainly shows that use hostnames
everywhere idiom that the IETF has been repeating doesn't quite work as
intended in the real life :-)
Yes it does, it's not a bug, it's a feature. It does exactly the right
Lican Huang (huang_lican) writes:
One problem is how to implement the DNS with huge amount
domain names.
Define huge -- it's already pretty huge today.
I don't think today's DNS implementation can handle
successively with huge amount domain names in the future.
Stephane Bortzmeyer (bortzmeyer) writes:
On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 10:29:27AM -0400,
Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 52 lines which said:
Is there any way to turn this off in Firefox 3?
Switch to a free software browser without this very bad policy?
Paul Vixie (vixie) writes:
therefore while i find your proposed solution to be of high quality, there
is a cost in overall system complexity for adding a virtual routing layer to
the DNS, which would have to be justified by a much more complete problem
statement and an objective analysis of
Paul Hoffman (paul.hoffman) writes:
Olaf agreed that there may be more operational input from people who are
currently deploying DNSSEC, and that this document might be ripe for a
renewal even though it is less than two years old. How do people in the WG
feel about this?
Recent events
(updated subject to reflect draft being discussed)
Paul Vixie (vixie) writes:
i think that if LOCALHOST. could be made to return A 127.0.0.1 and ::1
then we could use LOCALHOST. as a meaningless value for SOA.MNAME,
I actually considered that option for a moment.
but that
would just be
Dean Anderson (dean) writes:
A number of the points you raise have already been addressed.
Hi Dean,
Where ?
The IPV6 Reverse resolution question has been discussed at length in
DNSEXT previously. In fact, it was proposed to remove reverse resolution
entirely from IPV6 for
Holger Zuleger (Holger.Zuleger) writes:
Even BIND as a (local) forwarding name server is not able to use
GSS-TSIG to protect the communication with the recursive name server.
You can setup TSIG between recursive nameservers.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm looking for a TSIG
Joe Abley (jabley) writes:
(b) Inclusion of IPv6-related RFC6303-style zones on AS112 servers
(2) whether the list of zones specified is complete and accurate
[...]
(b) and (2) above also prompt the question of how we (more generally)
might manage the zones served by AS112 nodes,
Yoshiro YONEYA (yoshiro.yoneya) writes:
Indeed, the document is imcomplete, and need feedbacks from experiences.
There are indeed many ways to facilitate recovery, not all of them
practical or realistic.
Here's one that's more in the realm of prevention, but would
W.C.A. Wijngaards (wouter) writes:
Yes I wrote the code and say so. (Not sure how that is better than
reading the source). Results, anecdotally, are very modest. It does
remove latency spikes for popular names.
What does the latency spike translate to in terms of extra traffic
Joe Abley (jabley) writes:
1. subverting sufficient NTP responses over a long enough period to cause the
remote resolver's clock to turn back in time (long period suggested due to
many/most? implementations' refuse large steps in times, and hence many
smaller steps might be required)
14 matches
Mail list logo
