I'm probably on my own here but I dont think its that bad an idea.. seems like a
decent way to earn some money, of course you may create some bad press and upset
some customers but doesnt everything.
At least we the operators are left in control, and even end sites always have
the option of runn
Paul Vixie wrote:
DNSSEC, now in its eleventh year of preproduction, is supposed to make this
kind of middletweaking more detectable, but not more preventable. I suspect
that Rodney's idea for doing DNS over IP tunnels is even more desireable than
he thinks, for reasons he may not have yet consid
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Rubens Kuhl Jr.") writes:
> ... the DNS structure is a scalable way to locate IP addresses for names,
> but it needs trust as people can bypass it and go directly to root servers,
> gtld servers, cctld servers. The more non-standard hacks the structure get,
> the more distrust
|Is there concern to be raised by network operators over such schemes if
|deployed at the individual ISP level, particularly if such technology
|becomes widespread?
Yes: the DNS structure is a scalable way to locate IP addresses for names,
but it needs trust as people can bypass it and go directl
>
>
> That's not the point. A failed DNS lookup actually needs to fail, not get
> redirected.
Perhaps you need to change your definition of failed?
The lookup has not failed if the rcode in the reply is set to a
non-failing value.
-davidu
That's not the point. A failed DNS lookup actually needs to fail, not get
redirected.
Curtis
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Randall Pigott wrote:
>
> I am curious what the operational impact would be to network operators if,
> instead of Verisign using SiteFinder over all com and net, Verisign or
>
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 10:58:39 EST, Randall Pigott said:
> Is there concern to be raised by network operators over such schemes if
> deployed at the individual ISP level, particularly if such technology
> becomes widespread?
They're your customers. This week, anyhow.
That's the big difference b
At the ISP level, there's nothing inherently wrong with this, IMO; AOL and MSN do it
already, as does Microsoft. If your customers don't like it, they are capable
of voting with their checkbooks, particularly with dial service; with cable and
DSL, the waters are a bit muddier because a cable ISP
I am curious what the operational impact would be to network operators if,
instead of Verisign using SiteFinder over all com and net, Verisign or
their technology partner for SiteFinder began coercing a large number of
independent ISPs and network operators to install their form of DNS
redirect
> "Gregory" == Gregory Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gregory> From Dave Farber's IP list...
Gregory> VeriSign Reconsiders Search Service
This is an interesting suggestion that I saw on another list. It may
or may not be feasible, but it is certainly interesting, I must say.
and this helps fix thed "biased technologists" image, how?
> Again, the close knit community responds:
[ ... ]
If they give us 90 days headstart, by the time its supposed to start
it'd be blocked everywhere and Microsoft and Netscape would have released
a fix to redirect users to the page of their choice. If 90 days is not
enough to release such updates to software, lawyers can make sure its
delayed in
>Galvin said that the continued opposition stems from "an ideological
>belief by a narrow section of the technological community who don't
>believe you should innovate the core infrastructure of the Internet."
Again, the close knit community responds:
_ INNOVATE
From Dave Farber's IP list...
---
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25819-2004Feb9_2.html
VeriSign Reconsiders Search Service
"Site Finder was not controversial with users, 84 percent of whom said
they liked it as a helpful navigation service," said Tom
14 matches
Mail list logo
