> Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > We, the IETF, have failed them by not providing
> > them with a clear mechanism to do what they want without bad
> > side effects.
>
> I well remember DNS gurus trying to deprecate the use of "."
> wherever it might lead to queries to root servers for "." Is
> this no longer an issue?
SRV say to use "." for "no service".
RP say to use "." for "does not exist".
There are already queries for A and AAAA queries for ".".
Codifing the use of "MX 0 ." will, in the long run, reduce
the number of such queries as MTA's get updated.
The roots can handle the query load in the mean time.
> I'm very confused that Bill Manning seems to be calling for
>
> * MX .
I think you mean "* MX 0 ." and Bill was not saying that.
Bill knows that a wildcard record will not have the desired
effect. Adding a "MX 0 ." record along side a existing
record will have the desired effect.
> > It will be needed even *after* IPv6 takes over. There will
> > be lots of queries for A records long after the majority
> > of hosts don't have A records.
> >
> > We need to remove the implict MX from A to prevent the A
> > record lookups occuring as things currently stand.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
