On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, grenville armitage wrote:
Since when have political conspiracy theories,
Political conspiracy theory? The disparagement machine is working overtime.
allusions to impending legal action
I made no allusions. I demanded compliance with the law and performance of
fiduciary
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Anycast in the face of PPLB has been accepted (by most of us, at least)
specifically for the root servers because current queries to the roots do
not need to be fragmented and do not use TCP.
Right. But all DNS in the past (and most in the present)
Dean Anderson wrote:
Right. But all DNS in the past (and most in the present) is small, stateless UDP
packets. RFC1546 Anycast allows PPLB on diverse links. But future DNS will use
large UDP packets, fragments, and more TCP.
That's a big change for something we depending so much on today.
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: Dean Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It is not DNSSEC that is broken.
Anycast has been deployed for four years.
I think it is three years. But it has been controversial from the start.
Any change to the DNS infrastructure
From: Dean Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Any change to the DNS infrastructure that is incompatible
with use of
anycast is not acceptable and will not be deployed.
I don't think you get to make that demand. Or rather, I don't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a lurker, love him or hate him, Dean does evoke responses as varied
as any I've observed. Unfortunately all too often that's the only way
some truth will be allowed to leak out. Or people finally put pieces
together.
this particular cure -- if one lives in a
Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk
Note that I consider it irrelevant
whether his position in this or any past instance turns out to be
correct: it's the form, not the content, of his efforts that
is the problem.
S
That is a perilous line of reasoning indeed. You're saying if I
don't
Thomas Gal wrote:
[..]
I hope that being too
forceful, stubborn, or persistent (NOT oblivious or ambivalent) doesn't
become justification for reprimand.
Since when have political conspiracy theories, allusions to impending
legal action and references to other people's dating lives
Thomas Gal wrote:
[..]
I hope that being too
forceful, stubborn, or persistent (NOT oblivious or ambivalent)
doesn't become justification for reprimand.
Since when have political conspiracy theories, allusions to
impending legal action and references to other people's
Date:Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:41:56 -0400 (EDT)
From:Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| It is not DNSSEC that is broken.
I have not been following dnsop discussions, but from this summary, there
is nothing broken beyond your understanding of
From: Dean Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It is not DNSSEC that is broken.
Anycast has been deployed for four years. Any change to the DNS
infrastructure that is incompatible with use of anycast is not
acceptable and will not be deployed.
Anycast significantly improves the response time
In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert Elz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Without getting into to much detail, Anycast doesn't work with TCP,
| but it also doesn't work with large UDP packets and fragments.
Anycast does not work (or perhaps more correctly, in some circumstances
when there is routing
On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 10:06, Robert Elz wrote:
Date:Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:41:56 -0400 (EDT)
From:Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| It is not DNSSEC that is broken.
I have not been following dnsop discussions, but from this
Thus spake wayne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert Elz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anycast does not work (or perhaps more correctly, in some
circumstances when there is routing instability, will not work) with
fragmented UDP packets (the size of the packets is irrelevant, only
]
To: ietf@ietf.org; wayne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:09:00 -0500
Subject: Re: [dnsop] [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]
Thus spake wayne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert Elz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Anycast does not work (or perhaps more correctly
On Sep 24, 2005, at 8:28 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:
None of my emails have been abusive.
Speaking as a 99.% passive observer around here, I consider
Dean Anderson's emails, in aggregate, abusive. They consume precious
mental bandwidth, in many cases with no material technical
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tim Bray
On Sep 24, 2005, at 8:28 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:
None of my emails have been abusive.
Speaking as a 99.% passive observer around here, I consider
Dean Anderson's emails, in aggregate, abusive. They
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tim Bray
On Sep 24, 2005, at 8:28 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:
None of my emails have been abusive.
Speaking as a 99.% passive observer around here, I
None of my emails have been abusive. The IETF is not some random list that can
make up rules as it pleases. Nor is the IETF a popularity contest. Unlike
members of joes barbecue list or Nanog, or other such lists, IETF Participants
have an opportunity to participate and under the ISOC and IETF
19 matches
Mail list logo
