On Jan 17, 2014, at 6:44 AM, Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote:
Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
I can point anyone interested to the place in the
bind source to force it to reply to all UDP queries with TC=1
to force TCP. should be safe on any authority servers, as a recursive
Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
I can point anyone interested to the place in the
bind source to force it to reply to all UDP queries with TC=1
to force TCP. should be safe on any authority servers, as a recursive
server should be able to do outbound TCP.
However see
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 09:18:30AM +0200, Saku Ytti wrote:
mid term, transport area in IETF. DNS, NTP, SNMP, chargen et.al. could
trivially change to QUIC/MinimaLT
Oh, yes, it'd obviously be trivial to change DNS to use a different
transport. This is shown by the massive success of getting
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Andrew Sullivan asulli...@dyn.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 09:18:30AM +0200, Saku Ytti wrote:
mid term, transport area in IETF. DNS, NTP, SNMP, chargen et.al. could
trivially change to QUIC/MinimaLT
Oh, yes, it'd obviously be trivial to change DNS
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Andrew Sullivan asulli...@dyn.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 09:18:30AM +0200, Saku Ytti wrote:
mid term, transport area in IETF. DNS, NTP, SNMP, chargen et.al. could
trivially change to QUIC/MinimaLT
Oh, yes, it'd obviously be trivial to change DNS to
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:32:05AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
pretty easy to believe that quic would be helpful right?
Yes. It's also pretty easy to believe that ditching DNS completely in
favour of something without 8 billion warts would be helpful.
seems totally feasible.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Andrew Sullivan asulli...@dyn.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:32:05AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
pretty easy to believe that quic would be helpful right?
Yes. It's also pretty easy to believe that ditching DNS completely in
favour of something
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:48:56AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
I totally agree... I was actually joking in my last note :( sorry for
not adding the :) as requisite in email.
I'm sorry my humour is now so impaired from reading 1net and other
such things that I didn't figure it out!
On Jan 16, 2014 9:08 AM, Andrew Sullivan asulli...@dyn.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:48:56AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
I totally agree... I was actually joking in my last note :( sorry for
not adding the :) as requisite in email.
I'm sorry my humour is now so impaired from
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 09:19:44AM -0800, Cb B wrote:
I hate to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but in my network, IPv4
UDP is overstaying it's welcome. Just like IPv4 ICMP in 2001 - 2003, its
fate is nearly certain.
I won't speak about the other protocols, but I encourage you to turn
On Jan 16, 2014 9:31 AM, Andrew Sullivan asulli...@dyn.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 09:19:44AM -0800, Cb B wrote:
I hate to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but in my network, IPv4
UDP is overstaying it's welcome. Just like IPv4 ICMP in 2001 - 2003,
its
fate is nearly certain.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:39:46AM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:32:05AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
pretty easy to believe that quic would be helpful right?
Yes. It's also pretty easy to believe that ditching DNS completely in
favour of something without
On 16 Jan 2014, at 17:30 , Andrew Sullivan asulli...@dyn.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 09:19:44AM -0800, Cb B wrote:
I hate to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but in my network, IPv4
UDP is overstaying it's welcome. Just like IPv4 ICMP in 2001 - 2003, its
fate is nearly certain.
On (2014-01-16 09:19 -0800), Cb B wrote:
I hope QUIC does not stay on UDP, as it may find itself cut off at the
legs.
Any new L4 would need to support both flavours, over UDP and native. Over UDP
is needed to be deployable right now and be working to vast majority of the
end users.
Native-only
On Jan 16, 2014 10:16 AM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote:
On (2014-01-16 09:19 -0800), Cb B wrote:
I hope QUIC does not stay on UDP, as it may find itself cut off at the
legs.
Any new L4 would need to support both flavours, over UDP and native. Over
UDP
is needed to be deployable right now
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:55:18PM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
I can point anyone interested to the place in the
bind source to force it to reply to all UDP queries with TC=1
to force TCP. should be safe on any authority servers, as a recursive
server should be able to do outbound TCP.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Andrew Sullivan asulli...@dyn.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:32:05AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
So... what other options are there to solve the larger problem
On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 13:35:00 -0600, Jimmy Hess said:
Then the client's UDP stack must construct and send a Hashcash proof
of work, of sufficient difficulty based on the estimated query plus
response size,
up to the first full round trip;
containing a message digest of the first UDP
We don't need to change transport, we don't need to port knock. We
just need to implementent a slightly modified dns cookies which
reminds me that I need to review Donald Eastlake's new draft to be.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
We don't need to change transport, we don't need to port knock. We
just need to implementent a slightly modified dns cookies which
reminds me that I need to review Donald Eastlake's new draft to be.
But a change to DNS
In message caaawwbvjkeok-ydweqd4cowj9qaatbc8mkqwnxrsud55+h9...@mail.gmail.com
, Jimmy Hess writes:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
We don't need to change transport, we don't need to port knock. We
just need to implementent a slightly modified dns
On Jan 16, 2014 5:10 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message
caaawwbvjkeok-ydweqd4cowj9qaatbc8mkqwnxrsud55+h9...@mail.gmail.com
, Jimmy Hess writes:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
We don't need to change transport, we don't need to port
In message CAD6AjGTE-raK1AnFha+tz+WQGAuUrB7Pr0vfc3J=qnhfu63...@mail.gmail.com
, Cb B writes:
On Jan 16, 2014 5:10 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message
caaawwbvjkeok-ydweqd4cowj9qaatbc8mkqwnxrsud55+h9...@mail.gmail.com
, Jimmy Hess writes:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:05
23 matches
Mail list logo
