Hi,
I may have missed this, but I'd like to hear the lists opinion about
this article:
http://seclists.org/bugtraq/2008/Jan/0270.html
that states that localhost entries in zones should be discouraged.
I know that localhost entries were encouraged in RFC 1537 but that one
is obsolted by RFC 1912
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 12:00:11AM -0500, Joe Abley wrote:
it's barely worth suggesting them. Call me cynical :-)
Or on the money. Whichever fits :-)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1 503 667 4564 x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/
___
At 12:19 +0200 4/3/08, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
Hi,
I may have missed this, but I'd like to hear the lists opinion about
this article:
http://seclists.org/bugtraq/2008/Jan/0270.html
that states that localhost entries in zones should be discouraged.
My problem with that doc is it says uh, don't
Aww, I didn't do *that* great of a job taking notes, did I? I mean,
if you complain enough I won't be asked to do this again.
At 13:36 -0400 3/26/08, Edward Lewis wrote:
Comments?
DNSOP WG Minutes
IETF 71 @ Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
March 11, 2008
1. WG Administration notes
RFC 5138
There really is only one solution to preventing bogus
traffic reaching the root servers and that is to run a local
copy of the root zone.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET:
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 07:25:53PM -0700, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
address. So, it's not in use within a range, and referenced in a
forward mapping. Does this mean this address is not covered by the
above sentence of Section 4.2?
Right, it is not.
or something else? In either case,
Hello,
Sorry for the long delay. I've been overwhelmed by some other things...
At Sat, 29 Mar 2008 00:46:57 -0400,
Brian Dickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a meta (and most substantial) level, this version still doesn't
answer the fundamental question I asked a year ago: why *should* one
