On 22.07 14:46, Randy Bush wrote:
... the TTL issue is almost entirely NS RRs, ...
of course, almost all date in the gtlds are NS RRs, so the worry about
TTL crank-down holds, though just for silly gtld servers. then again,
they're paid to serve.
This assumes rational behavior of a lot of
It's IPv6 time.
http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3384791
Thanks,
-J
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
I welcome the change.
so do i. but more importantly, i agree with daniel that the next thing
that's going to happen as a result is that there will be pressure toward
lower ttl's. and i further agree with daniel that lower ttl's would be
bad. so, let's increase dynamicism of domain addition,
because i have sometimes been accused of being unfair to markk, i checked.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Kosters) writes:
the primary beneficiaries of this new functionality are spammers and
other malfeasants,
I think this is a true statement.
Has anyone done any studies to prove this
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:27:37 -1000 Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| all they need to do is register foo.bar with delegation to their
| dns servers, and change a third level domain name at will.
Er, no. They have of course tried that already!
By registering foo.bar with delegation to
Paul Vixie wrote:
so do i. but more importantly, i agree with daniel that the next thing
that's going to happen as a result is that there will be pressure toward
lower ttl's. and i further agree with daniel that lower ttl's would be
bad. so, let's increase dynamicism of domain addition, but
This report has been generated at Fri Jul 23 21:40:01 2004 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table
On 7/23/04 5:29 AM, Richard Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:27:37 -1000 Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| all they need to do is register foo.bar with delegation to their
| dns servers, and change a third level domain name at will.
Er, no. They have of
I did a lot of work on MPLS and the enterprises last year while I was at
Cisco and got some different conclusions:
Enterprises are not really turned on by full mesh almost all of their stuff
is hub and spoke, even the VOIP.
QOS was not a big thing and it wasn't clear that MPLS added anything
At 10:05 AM 7/23/2004, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
On 7/23/04 5:29 AM, Richard Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:27:37 -1000 Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| all they need to do is register foo.bar with delegation to their
| dns servers, and change a third level domain
... so, let's increase dynamicism of domain addition, but let's please
not also increase dynamicism of delegation change and domain deletion.
What would be your suggestion to achieve the desired effect that many seek
by lower TTL's, which is changing A records to point to available, lower
I don't want to digress into a spam-l or asrg standard thread, but I do want
to point out the similarity of what I think are ad networks that manage
sets of write-engines (aka zombies) in the blog-spam (http) problem space
with the canonical abuse-desk/xdsl swamp meta-thread on nanog.
I'm
i'd said:
wrt the mit paper on why small ttl's are harmless, i recommend that
y'all actually read it, the whole thing, plus some of the references,
rather than assuming that the abstract is well supported by the body.
someone asked me:
Would you happen to have the URL for the MIT paper?
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
Daily listings are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 24 Jul, 2004
I think we can probably chalk this up to a difference in dialect, for
lack of a better word...what you're calling an NIU is exactly what I
would call a smartjack and vice versa. Can you point to any sort of
official documentation that defines these? I'm looking to see if
anyone in my office
OK, from my reading in Newton's Telecom Dictionary, it appears that NIU
is a generic term for whatever the customer plugs their cable into,
be it a powered or a dumb device. Mea culpa.
However, the writeup on smart jack reads, in part:
...installed on the premises as a semi-intelligent
so, let's increase dynamicism of domain addition, but let's please
not also increase dynamicism of delegation change and domain deletion.
dear customer, you can have wheat bread today, but rye takes a
day. here is a url which explains the reasons in obscure technical
terms. right; bloody
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
| Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:01:54 +
| From: Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: that MIT paper again (Re: VeriSign's rapid DNS updates in
.com/.net )
|
|wrt the mit paper on why small ttl's are harmless, i recommend that
|y'all actually read
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 22:30:46 BST, Simon Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I think relying on accurate DNS information to distinguish spammers from
genuine senders is at best shakey currently, the only people I can think
would suffer with making it easier and quicker to create new domains
would
Petri Helenius wrote:
What would be your suggestion to achieve the desired
effect that many seek by lower TTL's, which is changing
A records to point to available, lower load servers at
different times?
On a similar note (and not viewing the issue through
the usual spam-colored glasses):
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
the primary beneficiaries of this new functionality are spammers and
other malfeasants
It appears your glass is half empty rather than half full. The
primary beneficiaries are all current and future .com/.net domain
holders: timely and predictable zone
Christopher Woodfield wrote:
I think we can probably chalk this up to a difference
in dialect, for lack of a better word...what you're
calling an NIU is exactly what I would call a smartjack
and vice versa. Can you point to any sort of official
documentation that defines these?
If a zone owner lowers a TTL and causes an increase in load, most of
the foot being shot off is his or her own: the zone's own name servers
will bear the brunt of the increased query load.
Maybe, but don't forget that when BIND9 and DJBDNS caches find
expired nameserver address (A) records
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Duane Wessels wrote:
Maybe, but don't forget that when BIND9 and DJBDNS caches find
expired nameserver address (A) records they don't trust any cached
data and start them back at the roots. And in the case of BIND9,
it sends both A and A6 queries for each nameserver in
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Christopher Woodfield wrote:
OK, from my reading in Newton's Telecom Dictionary, it appears that NIU
is a generic term for whatever the customer plugs their cable into,
be it a powered or a dumb device. Mea culpa.
...
...installed on the premises as a semi-intelligent
25 matches
Mail list logo
