On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 10:01:55PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Since the RDATA for a CNAME or DNAME is another point in the tree, the
> above convention would suggest in fact that you _can't_ point to a
> different alias (or else, we'd get a very unusual meaning of the terms
> "parallel" and "s
While not Paul or Stephane, I would like to point out that repeated, empirical
evidence shows that simply dropping or ignoring queries has the
operational effect of link saturation. A quicker, more reliable DDoS vector
may not exist. I could not agree that dropping queries is sensible or
prud
Two message replies in one:
On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:16:05PM +, Evan Hunt wrote:
> What *does* happen is unclear; maybe nothing. To the best of my
> knowledge, nobody currently uses non-IN namespaces except for strictly
> local authoritative data such as version.bind/CHAOS/TXT. I'm not su
In message , Paul Hoffman writes
:
> Greetings. This is a WG LC review of draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies, which I had no
> t looked at carefully in some time. In short: it looks great, the document is
> complete and easy-to-read, and we probably should have done this nearly a de
> cade ago when Donald
Greetings. This is a WG LC review of draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies, which I had not
looked at carefully in some time. In short: it looks great, the document is
complete and easy-to-read, and we probably should have done this nearly a
decade ago when Donald started the work.
Substantial:
In Sections
Thanks to Patrik, whom realized I pasted the wrong agenda into my email
This is the agenda which is in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/93/agenda/dnsop/
WG: DNS Operations (dnsop)
Meeting:IETF 93, Prague
Location: Congress Hall
On 05/07/2015 18:16, Evan Hunt wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 10:44:40AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> Imagine the alternative-resolution class FAKE. In the IN class,
>> example.com has a DNAME entry pointing to example.net. What should
>> happen when someone performs a query for QNAME loc
Hi
We've posted a draft agenda for the meeting. It can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/93/agenda/dnsop/
The meeting Monday Afternoon, so If your name is on this agenda then
please get me your slides by the weekend.
thanks
the chairs
WG: DNS
On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 10:44:40AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Imagine the alternative-resolution class FAKE. In the IN class,
> example.com has a DNAME entry pointing to example.net. What should
> happen when someone performs a query for QNAME localentry.example.com,
> TYPE , and CLASS F
On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 08:17:03AM +0100, Ray Bellis wrote:
>
> Sure, CNAME is *defined* for all classes, but AFAIK there's no way to "jump"
> out of one class into another using a CNAME.
No, that's correct. But if the point of using a class is to create a
separate namespace, then the fact of cl
On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 04:56:21AM -0700,
Steve Crocker wrote
a message of 23 lines which said:
> It would be acceptable to simply dump requests for those names if
> the load is too high.
In that case, resolvers try and try again, which is even worse for the
authoritative name servers. Also,
Stephane and Paul,
I’m ok with anything that provides effective negative feedback. Dropping
queries or redirecting them is ok with me.
Thanks,
Steve
On Jul 5, 2015, at 5:11 AM, P Vixie wrote:
> Delay is expensive for responders since it requires state. Steve's goal of
> making some tld str
Right. Cname does not cross classes.
In original DNS, class was incoherently sometimes an attribute of zone data and
sometimes a namespace selector. In modern DNS it is coherently always the
latter.
On July 5, 2015 8:17:03 AM GMT+01:00, Ray Bellis wrote:
>
>
>On 05/07/2015 01:35, Andrew Sulliv
Delay is expensive for responders since it requires state. Steve's goal of
making some tld strings flaky so as to encourage developers to avoid DNS for
those names could be met statelessly. For example delegate them to localhost.
On July 5, 2015 12:51:08 PM GMT+01:00, Stephane Bortzmeyer
wrote
On Jul 5, 2015, at 4:51 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 09:16:17AM -0700,
> Steve Crocker wrote
> a message of 21 lines which said:
>
>> except for the additional load it places on the root servers,
>
> RFC 7535 could be a solution.
>
>> I propose augmenting the DNS
On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 09:16:17AM -0700,
Steve Crocker wrote
a message of 21 lines which said:
> except for the additional load it places on the root servers,
RFC 7535 could be a solution.
> I propose augmenting the DNS to include entries in the root that
> serve the purpose of giving slow
This note is an attempt to describe how things work today and to bring some
precision to the current discussion. Except very mildly under the ISSUES
section at the end, this note does not propose anything new.
This is quick draft. There might be errors, missing pieces, assumptions, etc.
Plea
On 05/07/2015 01:35, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Classes don't work in the general case, because CNAME (and following
> it, DNAME) is class-independent. This is arguably a bug in the
> protocol, but it's a fact nevertheless. As a result, different
> classes aren't really different namespaces.
A
18 matches
Mail list logo
