> > Mark made the claim that a local copy of the root would stop the
> > traffic, which is false. a local copy of the root simply diffuses
> > the traffic.
> >
> > the down sides to local copies of the root as seen from the
> > peanut gallery:
> >
> > ) coherence of the a
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 7:07 PM, Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Mark made the claim that a local copy of the root would stop the
> > traffic, which is false. a local copy of the root simply diffuses
> > the traffic.
Depends on the root you use. If you use an inclu
Hello, again,
Thanks for the detailed response. I now understand what I was
concerned about more clearly, and hopefully I can be clearer on that
point this time.
At Sun, 30 Mar 2008 11:42:34 -0400,
Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As a meta (and most substantial) level, this versi
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 07:37:31AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> > On Apr 4, 2008, at 7:02 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 02:16:32PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > >>> er, it (the bogus ttraffic) still reaches the root.
> > >>> just your copy of the root,
Hi all.
I fully agree with Andrew that the cause is far worse than the disease.
I don't think the disease is life threatening. I keep hearing about the
"Problem" of bogus queries to the root. It is certainly messy and ugly but from
my perspective as an operator it is more of irritant than anyth
At Thu, 3 Apr 2008 22:34:29 -0400,
Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > or something else? In either case, does this mean we don't have to
> > > > provide reverse mappings for addresses that are NOT referenced in a
> > > > forward mapping?
> > >
> > > No. We added this text exactl
At 10:35 -0700 4/4/08, David Conrad wrote:
>provider. I refer you to Vijay Gill's statements about the impact of a
>single support call. While it is admittedly in a different context,
Not being facetious, but is there a reference into any archives where
that nugget is recorded? I ask because I
Andrew,
On Apr 4, 2008, at 10:08 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> A self-correcting problem. The folks that are affected are the ones
>> using the non-updated server and no one else.
> The problem is that those folks are _exactly_ the people who don't
> understand any of this Internet plumbing anywa
I agree almost completely (and that "almost" is only there to cover me
in case I think of an objection later) with what Bill Manning said.
But I'm particularly concerned about this:
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 08:46:21AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> A self-correcting problem. The folks that are affe
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 07:37:31AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> On Apr 4, 2008, at 7:02 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 02:16:32PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >>> er, it (the bogus ttraffic) still reaches the root.
> >>> just your copy of the root, not mine.
> >>Yep.
On Apr 4, 2008, at 8:30 AM, Frederico A C Neves wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 11:19:58AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 07:37:31AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> ...
>> I can just imagine the hue and cry that would happen when new top
>> level domains "don't work for ever
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008, Alfred H?nes wrote:
I wanted to send comments on
draft-hardaker-dnsops-name-server-management-reqs-01
in private communications to the author, but the message
has been bounced after 3 days of persistent errors:
...
Similar experiences?
Can someone there help?
Sadly, ye
I wanted to send comments on
draft-hardaker-dnsops-name-server-management-reqs-01
in private communications to the author, but the message
has been bounced after 3 days of persistent errors:
>>> DATA
451 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Unexpected close while awaiting
SMTP reply from nutshell.
I have read this document and have no objection to its publication.
That said, I share Jinmei's concern that the recommendation against
depending on reverse mapping is too weak in the context of the rest of
the document. I'm in favor of much stronger language saying "don't
depend on reverse ma
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 11:19:58AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 07:37:31AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
...
> I can just imagine the hue and cry that would happen when new top
> level domains "don't work for everybody".
Or in a future, actually very far from today, when DS
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 05:22:12PM +0200,
Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 62 lines which said:
> As promised in Philadelphia, here is my review of
> draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops-01.
Argh, it was draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help-01. Sorry.
signature.asc
As promised in Philadelphia, here is my review of
draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops-01.
Basically, the document is, IMHO, ready for publication. Although it
will be very different from many RFC (as noticed, we don't have a
document series for this sort of documents), it addresses an important
need, allow
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 07:37:31AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> >>leakage to the root servers is enormous.
> > This sounds to me like a cure that is quite possibly worse than the
> > disease.
>
> In what way?
It rather depends on how much the root zone changes.
The targets of "run your own r
As promised in Philadelphia, here is my review of
draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops-01.
Basically, the document is, IMHO, ready for publication. Although it
is not crystal clear in the document itself (I regret it), it
describes the *current* practices of AS112 operators and regards as
off-topic the futu
On Apr 4, 2008, at 7:02 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 02:16:32PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>> er, it (the bogus ttraffic) still reaches the root.
>>> just your copy of the root, not mine.
>> Yep. This should be seen as a good thing. The information
>> le
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 02:16:32PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > er, it (the bogus ttraffic) still reaches the root.
> > just your copy of the root, not mine.
>
> Yep. This should be seen as a good thing. The information
> leakage to the root servers is enormous.
This sound
21 matches
Mail list logo
