Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 4:12 PM Warren Kumari wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 9:00 PM Joe Abley wrote: > >> >> What some people are seeing in this thread as a problem is actually a >> nice demonstration that the system as a whole is immune to damage due to >> partial-table peering disagreements

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

On 10/10/19 10:31 PM, Adam Vallee wrote: > This is the point I've been trying to make for over 24 hours but it > would seem that my comments are not being approved and sent to the list. None of your postings have been intentionally blocked. The list policy is that all new subscribers are auto-mode

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 9:00 PM Joe Abley wrote: > On 11 Oct 2019, at 14:21, Paul Vixie wrote: > > > in the earlier days of DNS-OARC (where dnsviz migrated to recently), > there was a server at cogent, which was not reachable over IPv6 from users > are hurricane. i don't remember anybody blaming

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

On 11 Oct 2019, at 14:21, Paul Vixie wrote: > in the earlier days of DNS-OARC (where dnsviz migrated to recently), there > was a server at cogent, which was not reachable over IPv6 from users are > hurricane. i don't remember anybody blaming hurricane for this, which is why > it seems odd to b

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

> On Oct 11, 2019, at 2:21 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: > > i think there are 13 names each having an A and an . so, 26 candidate > addresses. most resolvers will try them all and home in on the one with the > lowest RTT. if one of the 13 it tries via IPv6 doesn't answer, it won't > affect operat

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

Viktor Dukhovni wrote on 2019-10-10 17:51: ... It has perhaps not been as well known as it deserves to be. Perhaps additional publicity here (and any other relevant fora), might nudge the parties closer to a resolution. The non-reachability of the IPv6 C root from a significant portion of I

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

Arsen STASIC: * Viktor Dukhovni [2019-10-10 20:51 (-0400)]: On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 06:25:41PM -0400, Matthew Pounsett wrote: The speculation I've seen is that Cogent refuses to treat HE as a Tier1 network in v6 because they don't try to also be one in v4, but that they should because HE's

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

> The speculation I've seen is that Cogent refuses to treat HE as a Tier1 > network in v6 because they don't try to also be one in v4 s/try to be/are not/ for cogent, v6 and v4 are parity > but that they should because HE's v6 network is much wider reaching > and much longer established than Cog

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

* Viktor Dukhovni [2019-10-10 20:51 (-0400)]: On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 06:25:41PM -0400, Matthew Pounsett wrote: The speculation I've seen is that Cogent refuses to treat HE as a Tier1 network in v6 because they don't try to also be one in v4, but that they should because HE's v6 network is muc

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

Adam, On Oct 11, 2019, at 12:36 AM, Adam Vallee wrote: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:40 AM David Conrad > wrote: > Adam, > > I’d recommend reading "A Proposed Governance Model for the DNS Root Server > System” (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rssac-037-1

Re: [dns-operations] glitch on [ip6|in-addr].arpa?

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 04:36:32PM -0400, Adam Vallee wrote a message of 114 lines which said: > DoH and DoT have only become a thing since GDPR. Why is no one > saying anything? Are you serious? A lot of electrons are moved around DoH. Many articles (most of them wrong). You certainly cannot