> On May 10, 2016, at 11:22 PM, Aaron Zauner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Yes, it is true that both DNSSEC and IPv6 still have some catching
>> up to do with vanilla DNS and IPv4, respectively. A sample of
>> DNSSEC adoption for a few TLDs:
>>
>> TLD DNSSEC
>> ---------- -----
>> .bank 100.0%
>> .ovh 46.4%
>> .amsterdam 24.9%
>> .email 1.4%
>> .edu 1.4%
>> .net 0.61%
>> .com 0.44%
>> .xyz 0.29%
>> .berlin 0.13%
>> .nyc 0.0066%
>
> Doesn't get more biased.
>
> nic.nl incentivises DNSSEC adoption with reduced domain rates (there're
> similar effort in Scandinavia as I am told by the PowerDNS people). I think
> DNSSEC is required for .bank and OVH just does their own thing.
Indeed, I am showing you the full spectrum. No intention to mislead
anyone with biased data. Obviously the double-digit percentages are
outliers, and various incentives are at play. And undoubtedly DNSSEC
is mandatory for .bank (no other plausible explanation for the above
100% support). The more realistic overall estimated support level is
O(0.5%), which e.g. translates to just south of 600k domains in the
.com zone.
There are many legitimate points of difference with respect to DNSSEC,
but I don't think that any are worthy of dogmatic zeal.
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
