On 21 Feb 2013, at 02:46, Carlos M. martinez
carlosm3...@gmail.commailto:carlosm3...@gmail.com wrote:
Wasn't the 'evil bit' able to hold the value 2 ?
Use all evil bits for IP addresses and we'll soon have no need for IPv6.
Geoff Huston and I wrote a draft to use the evil bit to indicate the
Wasn't the 'evil bit' able to hold the value 2 ?
Use all evil bits for IP addresses and we'll soon have no need for IPv6.
:D
~C.
On 2/15/13 6:45 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Feb 15, 2013, at 5:06 PM, Patrik Fältström p...@frobbit.se wrote:
On 15 feb 2013, at 18:19, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu
On Feb 20, 2013, at 9:46 PM, Carlos M. martinez carlosm3...@gmail.com wrote:
Wasn't the 'evil bit' able to hold the value 2 ?
Yes, but we need an RFC for that. From RFC 3514:
6. IANA Considerations
This document defines the behavior of security elements for the 0x0
and 0x1 values of
--On Friday, February 15, 2013 16:48 -0800 Joe Touch
to...@isi.edu wrote:
If any label were allowed, then why does IDN conversion go so
far out of its way to exclude particular strings, e.g., those
beginning/ending with '-' and encodes everything 0..7F into
a-z/0-9?
(I was focused on
Donald Eastlake wrote:
Let's see, here is the list of RFCs that the RFC Editor believes
update RFC 1035:
RFC 1101, RFC 1183, RFC 1348, RFC 1876, RFC 1982, RFC 1995, RFC 1996,
RFC 2065, RFC 2136, RFC 2181, RFC 2137, RFC 2308, RFC 2535, RFC 2845,
RFC 3425, RFC 3658, RFC 4033, RFC 4034, RFC
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 16, 2013, at 2:02 AM, Patrik Fältström p...@frobbit.se wrote:
On 15 feb 2013, at 23:45, Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote:
Sure -- the DNS protocol *cannot* handle any value in the octets -- in
fact, there are an *infinite* number of values it cannot handle
On 14/02/2013 23:02, Joe Touch wrote:
Hi, all,
By popular request, I've restored the DNS calculator function as an
operational service. See:
http://www.isi.edu/touch/tools/dns-calc.html
(this was designed for a Sigcomm OO session, but it's been used several
places as an example why the
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 03:02:48PM -0800,
Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote
a message of 16 lines which said:
By popular request, I've restored the DNS calculator function as an
operational service.
Why no delegation from postel.org? It is not really DNS if you have to
use an explicit name
On 2/15/2013 12:19 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 03:02:48PM -0800,
Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote
a message of 16 lines which said:
By popular request, I've restored the DNS calculator function as an
operational service.
Why no delegation from postel.org? It is
On 2/14/2013 3:07 PM, Marco Davids (Prive) wrote:
Op 15-02-13 00:02, Joe Touch schreef:
By popular request, I've restored the DNS calculator function as an
operational service. See:
http://www.isi.edu/touch/tools/dns-calc.html
Great! But I was hoping it would do DNSSEC by now.
Like
On 15 feb 2013, at 18:19, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
- the Bert version uses DNS strings that aren't valid
(*, +, ',', ++)
Are we going to open again the question whether the DNS protocol can handle any
value in the octets, as compared to the hostname definition that says
On 2/15/2013 2:06 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 15 feb 2013, at 18:19, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
- the Bert version uses DNS strings that aren't valid
(*, +, ',', ++)
Are we going to open again the question whether the DNS protocol can handle any
value in the octets,
- the Bert version uses DNS strings that aren't valid
(*, +, ',', ++)
this is not an accident
Are we going to open again the question whether the DNS protocol can
handle any value in the octets, as compared to the hostname definition
that says something more limited? ;-)
no need. the
On Feb 15, 2013, at 5:06 PM, Patrik Fältström p...@frobbit.se wrote:
On 15 feb 2013, at 18:19, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
- the Bert version uses DNS strings that aren't valid
(*, +, ',', ++)
Are we going to open again the question whether the DNS protocol can handle
any
--On Friday, February 15, 2013 14:10 -0800 Joe Touch
to...@isi.edu wrote:
Let's just say that there doesn't appear to be disagreement
that the DNS can handle a-z/0-9/'-'.
Other values _may or may not_ be permitted or handled opaquely
in the lookup, AFAICT. It remains a question AFAICT.
On 2/15/2013 3:17 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, February 15, 2013 14:10 -0800 Joe Touch
to...@isi.edu wrote:
Let's just say that there doesn't appear to be disagreement
that the DNS can handle a-z/0-9/'-'.
Other values _may or may not_ be permitted or handled opaquely
in the
Let's see, here is the list of RFCs that the RFC Editor believes
update RFC 1035:
RFC 1101, RFC 1183, RFC 1348, RFC 1876, RFC 1982, RFC 1995, RFC 1996,
RFC 2065, RFC 2136, RFC 2181, RFC 2137, RFC 2308, RFC 2535, RFC 2845,
RFC 3425, RFC 3658, RFC 4033, RFC 4034, RFC 4035, RFC 4343, RFC 5936,
RFC
Joe Touch wrote:
Seems clear to me:
RFC1035:
The labels must follow the rules for ARPANET host names. They must
start with a letter, end with a letter or digit, and have as interior
characters only letters, digits, and hyphen. There are also some
restrictions on the length. Labels
On 15 feb 2013, at 23:45, Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote:
Sure -- the DNS protocol *cannot* handle any value in the octets -- in
fact, there are an *infinite* number of values it cannot handle *in the
octets*. For example, it cannot handle 257. It also cannot handle 321, nor
On 16 feb 2013, at 01:48, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
(I was focused on looking up A records given FQDNs)
Thats a different thing than talking about what the DNS protocol can handle.
Patrik
On 16 Feb 2013 07:03, Patrik Fältström p...@frobbit.se wrote:
On 15 feb 2013, at 23:45, Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote:
Sure -- the DNS protocol *cannot* handle any value in the octets --
in fact, there are an *infinite* number of values it cannot handle *in the
octets*. For example,
Hi, all,
By popular request, I've restored the DNS calculator function as an
operational service. See:
http://www.isi.edu/touch/tools/dns-calc.html
(this was designed for a Sigcomm OO session, but it's been used several
places as an example why the DNS should NOT be anything more than a
Op 15-02-13 00:02, Joe Touch schreef:
By popular request, I've restored the DNS calculator function as an
operational service. See:
http://www.isi.edu/touch/tools/dns-calc.html
Great! But I was hoping it would do DNSSEC by now.
Like Bert's tool has been doing for ages:
dig
On 14 feb 2013, at 23:07, Marco Davids (Prive) mdav...@forfun.net wrote:
Great! But I was hoping it would do DNSSEC by now.
...how can one otherwise know that 2+3 is 4^H5
Patrik
24 matches
Mail list logo
