On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 05:48:24PM +0100,
Peter Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 332 lines which said:
Shouldn't the root servers also shuffle the NS RRset, as most of
them (K and the NSD instance of H don't) do for the '.'?
Hmmm, is it specified somewhere? People could say that it
I've read draft-kurtis-tld-ops-00.txt and I find it disappointing.
My main problem is that it says:
This document tries to analyze and define the operational
requirements for the second tier in the DNS lookup hierarchy.
But it just describes *solutions* (redundant power supply, backups),
not
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 12:55:36PM +0200,
Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 57 lines which said:
I couldn't find any discussion of this draft on the mailing list,
but the draft says that it should be discussed here,
Yes, but DNSop would be more adapted, no?
.
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 04:48:33PM -0500,
John Kristoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 33 lines which said:
;; ANSWER SECTION:
king.com. 172800 IN NS ns.fjordnetwork.com.
king.com. 172800 IN NS ns.midasplayer.com.
You do not
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 01:05:22PM -0400,
Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 255 lines which said:
to act as open resolvers,
BTW, open resolvers or Open Recursive Nameservers was, it seems,
the most common term but the draft calls them PRN (Public Recursive
Nameservers). Why the
On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 01:24:17PM +0300,
Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 46 lines which said:
The attacker could just use whatever 3rd party DNS records that
already exist, right?
Existing actual records do not typically provide a good amplification,
they are often too
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 03:50:02PM -0400,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 93 lines which said:
Title : Preventing Use of Recursive Nameservers in Reflector
Attacks
Author(s) : J. Damas, F. Neves
Filename:
On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 01:51:23PM +0200,
Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 22 lines which said:
My comments from July 7 have not been addressed or responded; it
seems these are still relevant in the -02 version.
Let's see them:
1) The attacker could just use whatever 3rd
On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 03:59:13PM +0200,
Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 18 lines which said:
Yes, I saw that, but I believe whether it's the main concern or not
is irrelevant -- the question to ask should be, is this variation
of attack relevant to the scope of the
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 07:21:01AM -0800,
Douglas Otis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 31 lines which said:
SPF is like using scripts, rather than bitmaps, to describe fonts
offering any number of features, such as flashing text, moving
arrows, and winking smiley faces.
I typically
10 matches
Mail list logo
