On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Jim wrote:
> While testing our DNSSEC signing product, I found that the expense of
> signing with NSEC3 versus NSEC was very data dependent. In TLD type
> zones with a sparse number of records that needed to be signed,
> signing time could be reduced from hours to
On Jan 3, 6:28 pm, Jonathan Petersson wrote:
> Thanks for your input
>
> /Jonathan
>
> On Jan 3, 2009, at 16:13, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In message
> > ,
> > "Jonathan Petersson"
> > writes:
> >> Hi all,
>
> >> Hopefully this post wont cause as much SPAM as my last one. About a
> >> yea
Thanks for your input
/Jonathan
On Jan 3, 2009, at 16:13, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message
,
"Jonathan Petersson"
writes:
Hi all,
Hopefully this post wont cause as much SPAM as my last one. About a
year ago I started looking into DNSSEC and how to work with it for
dynamic updates etc.
In message ,
"Jonathan Petersson"
writes:
> Hi all,
>
> Hopefully this post wont cause as much SPAM as my last one. About a
> year ago I started looking into DNSSEC and how to work with it for
> dynamic updates etc. Since only NSEC was supported, allowing whomever
> to do a unauthorized zone-tr
4 matches
Mail list logo
