Re: [dns-operations] Enom's name server broken?

2013-01-16 Thread Fan Of Network
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:19 PM, Matthew Ghali wrote: > In an ideal world, you'd get exactly what you pay for. In reality you get > less. Most people are definitely not paying for inter-provider coordination > and a seamless service cutover. Heck, they're paying barely enough for > service that

Re: [dns-operations] ID of IPv4 fragments and DNS and the future RFC

2013-01-16 Thread Tony Finch
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > Florian Weimer wrote: > > > 1000 responses per second doesn't seem that much, though. > > To the *same* destination? (The ID only has to be unique per each tuple > {src, dst, protocol}.) It looks a lot. It is not a lot for a recursive server with busy clients. Tony.

Re: [dns-operations] are we adding value?

2013-01-16 Thread Edward Lewis
Caution - philosophical territory. On Jan 15, 2013, at 18:29, George Michaelson wrote: > > We're in a world where the goal is to answer questions, quickly and > accurately. In a sense I disagree with that. In one of my first jobs my mission was to replace the tangled (pre-http) web of thin ne

Re: [dns-operations] Enom's name server broken?

2013-01-16 Thread Mark Jeftovic
On 13-01-16 12:33 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > > On 16 jan 2013, at 02:58, "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" > wrote: > >> The only time I've seen DNS being pulled or domains pointed at holding pages >> as described is with resellers of registrars > I can't seem to find the original email i

Re: [dns-operations] Enom's name server broken?

2013-01-16 Thread Michele Neylon :: Blacknight
On 16 Jan 2013, at 15:00, Mark Jeftovic wrote: > > > On 13-01-16 12:33 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: >> >> On 16 jan 2013, at 02:58, "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" >> wrote: >> >>> The only time I've seen DNS being pulled or domains pointed at holding >>> pages as described is with reselle

Re: [dns-operations] responding to spoofed ANY queries

2013-01-16 Thread Frank Bulk
Perhaps the ratio could be a dynamic whitelist -- if it's 1.5 or less, then allow the response to go out. Frank -Original Message- From: dns-operations-boun...@lists.dns-oarc.net [mailto:dns-operations-boun...@lists.dns-oarc.net] On Behalf Of Vernon Schryver Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013

Re: [dns-operations] responding to spoofed ANY queries

2013-01-16 Thread Vernon Schryver
> From: "Frank Bulk" > Perhaps the ratio could be a dynamic whitelist -- if it's 1.5 or less, then > allow the response to go out. What would be gained by spending the code complexity and CPU cycles such a mechanism would require? What bad things would be avoided or good things achieved? (Plea