On Aug 31, 2020, at 12:40 AM, Thomas Mieslinger <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 8/29/20 5:50 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> On Aug 28, 2020, at 3:24 PM, Puneet Sood via dns-operations >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> We would be interested in hearing other operator's experience here. >>> Are recursive servers seeing similar behavior from authoritative >>> servers? If yes, are you discarding these responses? >>> Are there authoritative server operators who still need the >>> flexibility afforded by RFC 1035? >> >> Please note that Puneet was asking for other operators' experiences, not the >> opinions of those of us who believe we should tell Google what to do. (And, >> yes, I certainly put myself in the latter category.) I, too, would like to >> hear if other resolver operators see this, and if possible to what extent >> they are seeing it, and if we're really lucky to hear at least a few names >> for which this is happening. The latter is not to name-and-shame, but >> instead to be able to talk to the authoritative operators about what their >> configuration is so that we can maybe guide others away from this path. > > At my employer we discard this kind of responses. We could analyze how > often we see them but we wait until someone calls customer care for "DNS > not working".
A percentage of responses would be great, as would the percentage of the authoritative servers doing this. And, yes, I totally get that I'm asking you to do work that you don't need to do because the customers aren't calling. --Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations
