note, i have removed the leading tab character from this author's paragraphs,
since i find it very distracting. (a cautionary note to marka and bmanning.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Phil Regnauld) writes:
Question: How do existing implementations react to the presence of a
single, terminal dot ?
Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Phil Regnauld) writes:
Question: How do existing implementations react to the presence of a
single, terminal dot ? What if an A record is published for '.' ? I
know it probably won't happen. but I'm also curious to know, and I think
the document should
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Dickson) writes:
Are you certain? (And does RCODE 3 mean, as I understand it, NXDOMAIN?)
i mean of course ANCOUNT=0 RCODE=0, thank you for your correction.
Again, hypothetically, what values for such an A RR would cause benign
behaviour? E.g. 127.0.0.1?
Just
(updated subject to reflect draft being discussed)
Paul Vixie (vixie) writes:
i think that if LOCALHOST. could be made to return A 127.0.0.1 and ::1
then we could use LOCALHOST. as a meaningless value for SOA.MNAME,
I actually considered that option for a moment.
but that
would just be
A number of the points you raise have already been addressed.
The IPV6 Reverse resolution question has been discussed at length in
DNSEXT previously. In fact, it was proposed to remove reverse resolution
entirely from IPV6 for just the reason Dr. Huang notes. A 128 bit IPV6
address is 16 octets.
Dean Anderson (dean) writes:
A number of the points you raise have already been addressed.
Hi Dean,
Where ?
The IPV6 Reverse resolution question has been discussed at length in
DNSEXT previously. In fact, it was proposed to remove reverse resolution
entirely from IPV6 for
I have just kicked off the open source project VIRGO-DNS. I will lead my
students and other colleagues to implement the draft. I got my Ph.d from 2003,
and was senior research assocate in Cardiff University.
The cache route information by applying Zipf's law will make average hops much
less
On 28 Jun 2008, at 11:29, Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Phil Regnauld) writes:
Question: How do existing implementations react to the presence of a
single, terminal dot ? What if an A record is published for '.' ? I
know it probably won't happen. but I'm also curious to know, and I
Is it not the case that ANCOUNT=0 RCODE=0 responses could be cached, whilst
failures to send DNS UPDATE messages to root servers would not be cached?
the data at hand tells me that lots of people don't cache, and those who
do only cache positives. but in principle, yes, if the hosts who aren't
Paul Vixie wrote:
Is it not the case that ANCOUNT=0 RCODE=0 responses could be cached, whilst
failures to send DNS UPDATE messages to root servers would not be cached?
the data at hand tells me that lots of people don't cache, and those who
do only cache positives. but in principle, yes,
10 matches
Mail list logo
