I keep trying to think of how this discussion could be operationally
relevant. The only thing I could come up with is:
Will reverting back to the proper NXDOMAIN break anything?
I have only seen inconveniences on my network since they changed, though I
know some had it worse than I did. For the
Well, considering that large numbers of community members here
installed the BIND patch (and patches for other vendors software) the
day it was released, I think we're just fine with this. :-)
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 06:03:16PM -0400, Gerald wrote:
>
> I keep trying to think of how this discussio
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
> Well, considering that large numbers of community members here
> installed the BIND patch (and patches for other vendors software) the
> day it was released, I think we're just fine with this. :-)
I am personally thrilled they are reverting. I also
--On Friday, October 03, 2003 7:36 PM -0400 Gerald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just wanted to point out if anyone did something other than just
patching bind and moving on, consider the repercussions of Verisign
reverting or you might have your weekend plans averted to undo your
changes.
Gerald C
> I have confidence in the bind patch not breaking bind when Verisign
> reverts back, but there were some pretty rash suggestions when the
> sitefinder service first came online. (Paul, bind won't break when this
> goes back to normal will it?)
ask yourself how many DNS admins are going t
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 05:34:07PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ask yourself how many DNS admins are going to go pull out
> the "-delegation" stanzas from their configs? Or that
> will use them to lie about other delegations that use wildcards
> as long as that code i
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 03:48:52PM +0200, Piotr KUCHARSKI wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 05:34:07PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > ask yourself how many DNS admins are going to go pull out
> > the "-delegation" stanzas from their configs? Or that
> > will use them to lie abou
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 05:34:07PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > ask yourself how many DNS admins are going to go pull out
> > the "-delegation" stanzas from their configs? Or that
> > will use them to lie about other delegations that use wildcards
> > as long as tha
> > And what possible problems are you expecting with leaving
> > zone "com" { type delegation-only; };
> > zone "net" { type delegation-only; };
> > in the configuration?
> >
> > They should be delegation-only in any case, shouldn't they?
that was the basis of the enhanced version of the featur
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 10:39:33AM -0400, Rob Payne wrote:
> At some point in the future you might think back on this as someone
> who said, "What possible problems would there be in hard-coding this
> list of bogon filters? 69.0.0.0/8 should be reserved, shouldn't it?"
IP space might have been
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 08:29:45AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > zone "com" { type delegation-only; };
> > zone "net" { type delegation-only; };
> well, thats up to the zone admin. :)
Everything is. :)
> my concern is mostly along the lines of folks who will do things like:
> zone "waw.pl"
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 04:24:18PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > > zone "com" { type delegation-only; };
> > > zone "net" { type delegation-only; };
> > > They should be delegation-only in any case, shouldn't they?
> that was the basis of the enhanced version of the feature, which is spelled
> "roo
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 08:29:45AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > zone "com" { type delegation-only; };
> > > zone "net" { type delegation-only; };
> > well, thats up to the zone admin. :)
>
> Everything is. :)
glad you agree.
> > my concern is mostly along the lines of
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 12:39:21PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > So you are questioning the "type delegation-only" functionality? Then
> > it's a wrong address, stupidity will always be the biggest problem in
> > the universe.
> in a word, YES. and there have been/are lots of folks
> who fa
> Paul, I would not call "root-delegation-only" an enhancement.
it's an enhancement in the sense that it's more complicated and it's more
code and it came later in response to complaints about the earlier feature.
> With "type delegation-only", you had to specifically name these and only
> these
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Piotr KUCHARSKI) [Sat 04 Oct 2003, 20:51 CEST]:
[..]
> do arbitrary changes to them. Marking "com" and "net" as delegation-only
> is not harming anything. (At least until ICANN changes its mind.)
According to this mail:
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars
At 23:40 05/10/2003, Niels Bakker wrote:
> do arbitrary changes to them. Marking "com" and "net" as delegation-only
> is not harming anything. (At least until ICANN changes its mind.)
According to this mail:
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg00532.html
... apparently it br
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 12:40:42AM +0200, Niels Bakker wrote:
> > do arbitrary changes to them. Marking "com" and "net" as delegation-only
> > is not harming anything. (At least until ICANN changes its mind.)
> According to this mail:
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg00
At 15:52 06/10/2003, Piotr KUCHARSKI wrote:
> > do arbitrary changes to them. Marking "com" and "net" as delegation-only
> > is not harming anything. (At least until ICANN changes its mind.)
> According to this mail:
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg00532.html
> ... app
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joel Rowbottom) [Mon 06 Oct 2003, 22:34 CEST]:
> At 15:52 06/10/2003, Piotr KUCHARSKI wrote:
>
do arbitrary changes to them. Marking "com" and "net" as
delegation-only is not harming anything. (At least until ICANN changes
its mind.)
>>> According to this mail
20 matches
Mail list logo
