RE: RE: Palladium (TCP/MS)

[Franck Martin]

And there is the mondo(?) project at ximian.com. Having .net running on
linux all in opensource.

Cheers.

> -Original Message-
> From: Lloyd Wood [mailto:l.wood@;EIM.SURREY.AC.UK]
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 October 2002 9:29 
> To: Christopher Evans
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: RE: Palladium (TCP/MS)
> 
> 
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Christopher Evans wrote:
> 
> > .net is a suite of coding & publishing tools.  maybe should throw
> > together a .org suite of freeware coding tools?
> 
> what, like www.gnu.org? www.fsf.org?
> 
> where have you been?
> 
> L.
> 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 

Re: RE: Palladium (TCP/MS)

[Christopher Evans]

.net is a suite of coding & publishing tools.  maybe should throw together a .org 
suite of freeware coding tools?  


10/29/02 2:54:02 AM, "Sean Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Good Morning  Valdis
>I have been cogitating on this for a little while. (Especially as I didn't want to 
sound thick when replying)
>
>Why would MS (or anyone for that matter) want multiple pointer records when one 
will suffice. My thoughts revolved around clustered servers, .net & etc In short 
the Microsoft-verse.

Re: Palladium (TCP/MS)

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:54:02 GMT, Sean Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  said:
> Why would MS (or anyone for that matter) want multiple pointer records when
> one will suffice. My thoughts revolved around clustered servers, .net & etc In
> short the Microsoft-verse.

You're close.  You'd want this for multihomed servers, so a PTR query works
as you'd expect.  Consider this case:

www.big-corp.comA   10.0.0.10
A   192.186.10.10
mail.big-corp.com   A   10.0.0.10
A   172.16.23.10

Then you'd want to have PTRs  as follows:

192.168.10.10   PTR www.big-corp.com
172.16.23.10PTR mail.big-corp.com

(and then the magic)

10.0.0.10   PTR www.big-corp.com
PTR mail.big-corp.com

If you don't have 2 PTR records for that last, you can get into the situation
where a system will look up the A record for www, get the IP address, then
do a PTR to sanity-check, get back only the mail. address, and get upset.
Having both PTR records means that you'll be able to find one to match to
the original hostname either way...

> In reality it doesn't matter two hoots what MS do, they will still have to
> inter-operate with the rest of the Internet per se, unless you believe the
> scare mongering that with .Net MS want to make a corporate Internet which they
> control.

Note that Microsoft is being very careful to fight the .Net war at the
application level and leave transport and lower alone, simply because they
know they need to interoperate.

> Thinking along a bit more, setting the routers shouldn't be a big issue,
> after all Cisco have been producing routers IPv6 capable for a fair while now,
> so surely they could incorporate multiple PTR records within the routers
> capability?

Routers don't have anything at all to do with PTR records.  What I said
was that if a company wanted to block all access to Microsoft's servers,
they'd have to keep continual track of all the IP addresses in use - which
can be interesting if round-robin DNS or other similar things are in use.

-- 
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Senior Engineer
Virginia Tech




msg09201/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

RE: Palladium (TCP/MS)

[Sean Jones]

Good Morning  Valdis

 
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:37:44 BST, Sean Jones 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  said:
 
> > Why is a PTR (or DNS) record with MS TCP different from the 
> standard TCP/IP record? 

> > (Perhaps it is me in my ignorance, or lack of understanding :o) )
 
> It's not different.  Or in any case, it's not sufficiently 
> different to cause an interoperation problem in this case.
 
> The reference to RFC2821, section 10.2 was regarding the fact 
> that having multiple PTR records for one address *IS* legal, despite 
> widespread belief to the contrary.  The original point was that you'll need a 
> router ACL to block a lot more than one address, and keep the list of 
> addresses up to date.
 
> And anyhow, using a router block is a bad idea in this case.  
> There's two cases - either you still have machines using that vendor's 
> software, and you WANT them to reach the servers so they can update, or you 
> don't have the software installed, in which case you don't really care if 
> the server is reachable.. 
> -- 
>   Valdis Kletnieks
>   Computer Systems Senior Engineer
>   Virginia Tech


I have been cogitating on this for a little while. (Especially as I didn't want to 
sound thick when replying)

Why would MS (or anyone for that matter) want multiple pointer records when one will 
suffice. My thoughts revolved around clustered servers, .net & etc In short the 
Microsoft-verse.

In reality it doesn't matter two hoots what MS do, they will still have to 
inter-operate with the rest of the Internet per se, unless you believe the scare 
mongering that with .Net MS want to make a corporate Internet which they control.

(If they did ever go that way, I'd be one of the first to join "Treehouse")

Thinking along a bit more, setting the routers shouldn't be a big issue, after all 
Cisco have been producing routers IPv6 capable for a fair while now, so surely they 
could incorporate multiple PTR records within the routers capability?

Regards

Sean Jones
A Boring old IT Manager for a SME