Re: [DNSOP] Making draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel apply to all zones

Hi Paul, > On 15 Dec 2017, at 12:51 pm, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > Please see . > This is a small set of changes that make the draft not treat the root zone as > special. It allows the labels to be used for any zone, not just the root.

Re: [DNSOP] Please review in terminology-bis: In-bailiwick, Out-of-bailiwick, In-domain, Sibling domain

yes. this is good. -G On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 12:30 PM, wrote: > Thanks. > > Adding a example as a text is a little complicated. > > Adding examples as a table is good ? or too large ? > > Delegation | Parent | Name Server Name | Type > | Zone || > -

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations-08.txt

Below is a java program I wrote to model this stuff.  In the table, SF2 represents the number of clients that blew past twice the safety factor (for aR+aHD+aR), SF1 represents the number of clients that blew past the single safety factor.  OF is the number of clients using the activeRefreshOffs

Re: [DNSOP] Please review in terminology-bis: In-bailiwick, Out-of-bailiwick, In-domain, Sibling domain

Thanks. Adding a example as a text is a little complicated. Adding examples as a table is good ? or too large ? Delegation | Parent | Name Server Name | Type | Zone || +++-- com | .

[DNSOP] Making draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel apply to all zones

Please see . This is a small set of changes that make the draft not treat the root zone as special. It allows the labels to be used for any zone, not just the root. --Paul Hoffman ___ DNS

Re: [DNSOP] Ask for advice of 3 new RRs for precise traffic scheduling

Robert Edmonds wrote: Or, put another way, we like existing resolver implementations just fine, we just wish there were a lot more resolver instances, and closer to clients:-) on it. no smiley. -- P Vixie ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org http

Re: [DNSOP] Ask for advice of 3 new RRs for precise traffic scheduling

bert hubert wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 05:36:32PM +0800, zuop...@cnnic.cn wrote: > > so far as i know, many CDNs already use similar methods as you mentioned > > in PowerDNS 4.1.1 > > but i think only the Authoritative Server change is not enough, support > > on the recursive server i

Re: [DNSOP] CLIENT-SUBNET bis appetite?

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote: > Any appetite for it? Don't throw things at me.. I ask because the > current thing is slowly getting more widely deployed and there are > design issues that can do with a ECS2 that breaks from ECS1 protocol. I > ask because I'm once again

Re: [DNSOP] CLIENT-SUBNET bis appetite?

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:09:13PM +0530, Mukund Sivaraman wrote: > Any appetite for it? Don't throw things at me.. I ask because the > current thing is slowly getting more widely deployed and there are > design issues that can do with a ECS2 that breaks from ECS1 protocol. I > ask because I'm once

[DNSOP] CLIENT-SUBNET bis appetite?

Any appetite for it? Don't throw things at me.. I ask because the current thing is slowly getting more widely deployed and there are design issues that can do with a ECS2 that breaks from ECS1 protocol. I ask because I'm once again having to deal with myriad implementation cases and dislike it.