Thanks, Dean,
Another disadvantages of current IPv6 Root DNS architecture is easy to
attack, and even local domain names are unreachable when root servers can not
be accessed. For example, the fibre cables connecting US with China was broken
by earthquake, then almost all web pages was unrea
On 25 Jun 2008, at 04:58, 黄理灿 wrote:
For example, the fibre cables connecting US with China was broken by
earthquake, then almost all web pages was unreachable even the
machine was in China because of root servers are located in USA.
Note that this isn't even close to being true, and hasn'
On Jun 25, 2008, at 10:58 AM, 黄理灿 wrote:
For example, the fibre cables connecting US with China was broken
by earthquake, then almost all web pages was unreachable even the
machine was in China because of root servers are located in USA.
Not so. Have a look at http://www.isc.org/ops/f-ro
> From: "黄理灿" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>... almost all web pages was unreachable even the machine was in China
> because of root servers are located in USA. ...
according to http://f.root-servers.org/, there are two f-root servers in
china. if you have local contacts within china, please help us
Regarding:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-licanhuang-dnsop-distributeddns-04.txt
This document begins with a faulty problem statement, shows an
apparent misunderstanding of how the DNS functions and seems to not
recognize what DNS's great strengths are. Whether the idea is a
"solut
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 04:58:18PM +0800,
?? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 85 lines which said:
> Thanks, Dean,
Lican, I must tell you that associating with a known troll like
D. A. is not a good idea to spread your ideas. Almost everything in
his message is completely wrong (for
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 04:58:18PM +0800,
> ?? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> a message of 85 lines which said:
>
> > Thanks, Dean,
>
> Lican, I must tell you that associating with a known troll like
> D. A. is not a good idea to spread your
According to this page, both F-root servers in China are "local nodes",
meaning they don't advertise their route outside of the ISP they are
connected to.
In fact, all copies of F-root except 2 (below) are local nodes, and the
two that aren't, are quite close geographically. ISC doesn't publish
if only ICANN
were to publish the root zone publicly instead of only to root server
operators.
You mean like http://www.internic.net/domain/root.zone that has been
published since, oh, 1996 or so?
Regards,
-drc
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.or
So why deny AXFR from roots, then?
;File start: 24620
; The use of the Data contained in Verisign Inc.'s aggregated
; .com, and .net top-level domain zone files (including the checksum
; files) is subject to the restrictions described in the access Agreement
; with Verisign Inc.
. INSOA A
On Jun 25, 2008, at 3:20 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:
So why deny AXFR from roots, then?
AXFR constitutes a significantly greater load on a name server than
simply answering normal queries. As such, independent root server
operators may decide to restrict zone transfer from their root servers.
On 25 Jun 2008, at 18:20, Dean Anderson wrote:
So why deny AXFR from roots, then?
I'll note that this is a matter for individual root operators, so the
question is better directed at them, individually. However, as a
trivial refutation of the implication that all root servers deny AXFR,
On 25 Jun 2008, at 16:08, Dean Anderson wrote:
According to this page, both F-root servers in China are "local
nodes",
meaning they don't advertise their route outside of the ISP they are
connected to.
"The ISP" is misleading; both F-root nodes in the PRC are connected to
popular exchange
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, David Conrad wrote:
> On Jun 25, 2008, at 3:20 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:
> > So why deny AXFR from roots, then?
>
> AXFR constitutes a significantly greater load on a name server than
> simply answering normal queries. As such, independent root server
> operators may deci
On Jun 25, 2008, at 4:19 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:
BTW, can you explain what these zones are?
http://idn.icann.org/#The_example.test_names
Regards,
-drc
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Dean Anderson wrote:
BTW, can you explain what these zones are?
XN--KGBECHTV. NS A.IANA-SERVERS.NET
Wow, an interesting, operationally pertinent question. It deserves mild
praise and an answer.
See http://www.iana.org/reports/2007/testetal-report-01aug2007.html
(Things that start with xn--
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a.root-servers.net does not leave AXFR wide open, at least for this client
> b.root-servers.net does leave AXFR wide open, at least for this client
> c.root-servers.net does leave AXFR wide open, at least for this client
> d.r
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On 25 Jun 2008, at 16:08, Dean Anderson wrote:
>
> > According to this page, both F-root servers in China are "local
> > nodes", meaning they don't advertise their route outside of the ISP
> > they are connected to.
>
> "The ISP" is misleading; both F-r
On 25 Jun 2008, at 21:42, Dean Anderson wrote:
There is nothing misleading in "The ISP".
Apart from the fact that it's singular, which was the basis of the
only technical point it seemed to me that you tried to make.
Joe
___
DNSOP mailing list
On 25 jun 2008, at 14.17, Joao Damas wrote:
On Jun 25, 2008, at 10:58 AM, 黄理灿 wrote:
For example, the fibre cables connecting US with China was broken
by earthquake, then almost all web pages was unreachable even the
machine was in China because of root servers are located in USA.
Not so
The draft also uses local cache. Besides of technologies now used, it adds a
virtual overlay P2P layer, and cache route informaion. If queries can not find
the right data in the local cache, this draft goes to the servers in the upper
layer of tree or the servers having the minimun hop distance
21 matches
Mail list logo
