On 9/8/09 9:15 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message4aa58174.6010...@mail-abuse.org, Douglas Otis writes:
Mark,
There are valid reasons to formally make statements about a practice,
whether that rules the day is a different matter. There is a practice
promoted, in respect to IPv4, where the
On 9/5/09 5:53 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I claim that we need to provide support for the network that people
are actually building. That often includes things that we would not
do ourselves, and that we think would be better done otherwise.
There are valid reasons to formally make statements
In message 4aa58174.6010...@mail-abuse.org, Douglas Otis writes:
On 9/5/09 5:53 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I claim that we need to provide support for the network that people
are actually building. That often includes things that we would not
do ourselves, and that we think would be
No hat of any kind. Not even my boater, which I will soon be sad to
put away again.
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 12:11:29PM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
People don't move house very often.
Speak for yourself!
But anyway, I think we have clearly crossed the Rubicon of folly if we
think that the
-Original Message-
From: dnsop-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Mark
Andrews
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 9:53 PM
To: Doug Barton
Cc: dnsop
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Draft on rDNS for IPv6: draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-00
Windows already attempts to do
-Original Message-
From: dnsop-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Douglas
Otis
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 2:18 PM
To: Doug Barton
Cc: dnsop; Shane Kerr
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Draft on rDNS for IPv6: draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-00
Saying IPv6 reverse
on rDNS for IPv6: draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-00
Windows already attempts to do UPDATE. It just does it over UDP.
Switching to TCP for the UPDATE message should be trivial.
I guess that's for them to decide, but certainly the protocols are there.
I think I said that in the draft, too.
Since
Mark,
On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 11:36 +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
Feel free to do that with networks you operate. This is a huge cost, if
you compare it to a zone file with a $RANGE statement, which is what we
have today.
How is it a huge cost? Please tell me. Most of the zones would
have
The frustrating thing about this discussion is that Shane is right.
Personally I think rdns is useful, but there is no market pressure to
do it right, and doing it wrong isn't that useful.
Fundamentally the problem is that the ISP owns the rdns delegation,
and they have no reason to set up
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009, fujiw...@jprs.co.jp wrote:
Now, I'm testing On the Fly generation of PTR and RRs and On
the Fly signing using perl + Net::DNS::SEC.
I notice it creates a new signature for same look up everytime. So the
inception and expiration is increased immediately. Would it make
From: Jeremy C. Reed r...@reedmedia.net
Now, I'm testing On the Fly generation of PTR and RRs and On
the Fly signing using perl + Net::DNS::SEC.
I notice it creates a new signature for same look up everytime. So the
inception and expiration is increased immediately.
It creates a new
In message 1251894987.3172.11867.ca...@shane-asus-laptop, Shane Kerr writes:
Ted,
On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 08:05 -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
The frustrating thing about this discussion is that Shane is right.
Personally I think rdns is useful, but there is no market pressure to
do it
On Sep 2, 2009, at 5:36 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
With IPv6 the address blocks should be stable to ALL customers.
Buy stock in memory manufacturers for routing vendors.
Sorry, wrong list.
Regards,
-drc
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
In message 1023e5ce-4faf-4977-84b1-e26693307...@virtualized.org, David Conrad
writes:
On Sep 2, 2009, at 5:36 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
With IPv6 the address blocks should be stable to ALL customers.
Buy stock in memory manufacturers for routing vendors.
People don't move house very often.
In message 200909030211.n832buty082...@drugs.dv.isc.org, Mark Andrews writes:
In message 1023e5ce-4faf-4977-84b1-e26693307...@virtualized.org, David Conr
ad
writes:
On Sep 2, 2009, at 5:36 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
With IPv6 the address blocks should be stable to ALL customers.
Buy
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 1:04 PM
To: Mark Andrews
Cc: dnsop
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Draft on rDNS for IPv6: draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-00
Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 4a9c783e.8090...@dougbarton.us, Doug Barton writes:
Mark Andrews wrote:
This was on the adgena for DNSOP at the last IETF
On 9/1/09 11:55 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
When IPv6 forces use of positive reputations, reverse DNS
entries become superfluous.
I'm sorry, I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Could you
elaborate?
We offer an email abuse tracking service that lists IPv4 addresses.
Defending this
In message 1251822081.3172.8887.ca...@shane-asus-laptop, Shane Kerr writes:
Mark,
On Tue, 2009-09-01 at 11:52 +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
If you deploy BCP 38 to the customer level TCP is a good enough
authenticator for updating a reverse zone via UPDATE.
As I mentioned at the IETF,
Mark Andrews wrote:
This was on the adgena for DNSOP at the last IETF 75. There was
much discussion.
Sorry if I'm rehashing this unnecessarily. I did (an admittedly
cursory) search of my list archive and didn't see anything similar.
Not all of use agree with the analysis in that
document
In message 4a9c783e.8090...@dougbarton.us, Doug Barton writes:
Mark Andrews wrote:
This was on the adgena for DNSOP at the last IETF 75. There was
much discussion.
Sorry if I'm rehashing this unnecessarily. I did (an admittedly
cursory) search of my list archive and didn't see
20 matches
Mail list logo
