one might actually extrapolate here (and maybe look back a couple
decades) ... there used to be many different transports around -
and about the timethe DNS "gel'ed", most had become vestigal. We
are now in the evoultionary "fork in the road" when we have an
emergent, new transport that demands
On Apr 2, 2010, at 2:02 AM, Jim Reid wrote:
> I agree with your point about the haggling Ted. I'm not so sure we
> agree on the definition of a wrong answer.
I think Ed's point about caching behavior proves you to be correct.
___
DNSOP mailing list
DN
On 1 Apr 2010, at 16:18, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Apr 1, 2010, at 2:49 AM, Jim Reid wrote:
Why don't yahoo approach the problem the same way google has done for
IPv6 to www.google.com? They only hand out records for this name
to ISPs who can demonstrate they have solid IPv6 connectivity. This
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 08:18:43AM -0700, Ted Lemon wrote:
I think a principled position can be taken that giving out wrong
answers should not be done, but once you've decided that you're willing
to give out wrong answers, we're really just haggling over the price.
Would "RA=0, NODATA" as a res
On Apr 1, 2010, at 2:49 AM, Jim Reid wrote:
> Why don't yahoo approach the problem the same way google has done for
> IPv6 to www.google.com? They only hand out records for this name
> to ISPs who can demonstrate they have solid IPv6 connectivity. This is
> ugly and distasteful. But it d
> The bottom line is, that if a given provider's users send in too many
> complaints about connectivity problems, the business folks will push for
> dewhitelisting. That's bad for both the content and access provider sides
> for a variety of reasons.
Or, you could just refer them back to their I
On Apr 1, 2010, at 2:49 AM, Jim Reid wrote:
>
> This is a valid concern. It does not and should not need to be
> addressed (excuse the pun) by making authoritatiev servers do stupid/
> wrong/bad things.
Actually, that dns hack is for resolvers. That's the only place the end client
talks to
