On Mon, 21 May 2007, Gadi Evron wrote: > As to NS fastflux, I think you are right. But it may also be an issue of > policy. Is there a reason today to allow any domain to change NSs > constantly? well, so it's not explicitly denied in the current operations policy things, so people may depend on it for some reason(s). They might have turned on a service that depends on it, something not related to email or web or other things. DNS is basic internet plumbing, messing with it without LOTS of study is bound to bring out wierd uses. Especially where there is no prohibition on this today, making an arbitrary limit tomorrow is going to cause problems. -Chris
- Re: Interesting new dns failures Chris L. Morrow
- Re: Interesting new dns failures Gadi Evron
- Re: Interesting new dns failures Chris L. Morrow
- Re: Interesting new dns failures Roger Marquis
- Re: Interesting new dns failures Chris L. Morrow
- Re: Interesting new dns failures Gadi Evron
- Re: Interesting new dns failures Edward Lewis
- Re: Interesting new dns failures Crist Clark
- Re: Interesting new dns failures Paul Vixie
- Re: Interesting new dns failures Gadi Evron
- Re: Interesting new dns failures Chris L. Morrow
- Re: Interesting new dns failures Gadi Evron
- Re: Interesting new dns failures David Ulevitch
- Re: Interesting new dns failures Gadi Evron
- Re: Interesting new dns failures David Ulevitch
- Re: Interesting new dns failures Gadi Evron
- Re: Interesting new dns failures Douglas Otis
- Re: Interesting new dns failures David Ulevitch
- Re: Interesting new dns failures Suresh Ramasubramanian
- Re: Interesting new dns failures Kradorex Xeron
- Re: Interesting new dns failures Chris L. Morrow