On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Evan Hunt wrote:
Once again, the recursive resolver needn't be built in. It only has to be
accessible -- via resolv.conf, for example.
Mmmm, populating auth servers based on at most an AD bit of something
from resolv.conf. Which more and more people are just pointing to
8.
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 04:54:55PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> If that is your use case, I also see no point in ANAME being used by
> resolvers, and you should just create the new XFR type for this, so that
> AUTH servers can update their A/ records without needing any
> recursive DNS protocol
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Evan Hunt wrote:
But, because there are always going to be legacy servers, the client would
then need to send an ANAME query, and when it got no answer, send another
query for A and .
If clients were willing to do that, then they'd have been willing to use
SRV, and we'd
At Tue, 18 Apr 2017 13:54:54 +0100,
Tony Finch wrote:
> > I also wonder whether it's okay to allow ' or A' and ANAME to
> > coexist for the same owner name. Shouldn't it be prohibited similar
> > to that CNAME and other types can't coexist?
>
> From the point of view of a provisioning-side i
On 04/20/2017 08:36 AM, Evan Hunt wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 10:47:24PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
ANAME could just be a regular RRTYPE without any special handling,
meaning "go look there for up to date information on A/". It could
come along A/ records using one of the existing bit
