On May 18, 2015, at 2:07 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> I look somewhat unfavorably on the act of automatically populating zones
> on a customers behalf upstream of their cpe for the same reason I not
> so interested in autmatically injecting host-id signaling, or in fact
> from dynmic dns updates usin
On 5/14/15 6:48 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On May 14, 2015, at 2:52 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
>> It would be super-annoying for delegations to nameservers that do
>> not exist to occur for these, because not only will there be
>> trillions of them but I get to wait for them to time out, so
>> delegation
On May 14, 2015, at 3:55 PM, wrote:
> what do you do
> when the customer goes off net, or acquires a new dynamic address?
> Does the protocol take care to *remove* the old delegation then?
Yes.
As to the error rate, actually if this is designed and implemented properly the
error rate could be
On May 14, 2015, at 2:52 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> It would be super-annoying for delegations to nameservers that do not
> exist to occur for these, because not only will there be trillions of
> them but I get to wait for them to time out, so delegation to cpe for
> example seems like a non-starte
Thursday, May 14, 2015 4:31 AM
To: Shane Kerr
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Rejecting Practice for Theory (was Re: relax the
requirement for PTR records?)
Shane Kerr wrote:
> ...
>
> However, as far as I can tell everyone insisting that PTR is important
> is arguing that the
> > so, my hope is that we could recommend against machine-generated PTR's,
> > and recommend in favour of PTR delegation when a customer requests it,
> > all while understanding that ISP's will do whatever they want after they
> > see whatever recommendations we make.
> >
>
> I would vastly pref
On 5/14/15 11:25 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>
> Ted Lemon wrote:
>> On May 14, 2015, at 4:15 AM, Shane Kerr wrote:
>>> The main argument seems to be that because e-mail uses reverse DNS as
>>> input into spam detection, it is important. The argument proceeds to
>>> then say that we want every compu
Ted Lemon wrote:
> On May 14, 2015, at 4:15 AM, Shane Kerr wrote:
>> The main argument seems to be that because e-mail uses reverse DNS as
>> input into spam detection, it is important. The argument proceeds to
>> then say that we want every computer on the Internet to run an SMTP
>> server, so
On May 14, 2015, at 4:15 AM, Shane Kerr wrote:
> The main argument seems to be that because e-mail uses reverse DNS as
> input into spam detection, it is important. The argument proceeds to
> then say that we want every computer on the Internet to run an SMTP
> server, so every computer needs a PT
Shane Kerr wrote:
> ...
>
> However, as far as I can tell everyone insisting that PTR is important
> is arguing that the world would be a better place if every endpoint on
> the Internet was equal.
if by "equal" you mean "so expensive that it won't be an open relay,
won't get infected with relay
All,
On Wed, 13 May 2015 17:01:24 -0400
Lee Howard wrote:
> From: Lee Howard
> Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 10:57 AM
> To: , Alain Durand
> Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org"
> Subject: [DNSOP] relax the requirement for PTR records?
>
> >
> > Is there consensus now that ISPs don't need to provid
11 matches
Mail list logo
