Am 07.01.2016 um 22:31 schrieb Warren Kumari:
Reindl, did you read the draft referred to in the HINFO? ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any/ ). It clearly outlines the reasons that cloudfare is doing this. This document was discussed in the DNSOP WG, and was presented at a few meetings. The consensus within the DNSOP WG was to adopt and work on the draft, so I object to your characterization of this as "another clueless idiot degrading services" at a large company. Olafur and Joe (the authors of this) are far from clueless idiots. In addition, please try to moderate your tone - people come to the BIND Users list for assistance - your argumentative (and often insulting) posts are not helpful to building a community
i did read and understand the reasoning long before this thread as i also had the RRL patches in production long before they went to stable releases http://www.tummy.com/blogs/2013/02/20/bindrrl-patched-rpms-available/
with RRL and "minimal-responses yes;" the response size/impact of a ANY query is very limited while that is a completly different reasoning than "I don't want display all info"
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
