On Sep 28, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> We are adding (at the IESG's request) this (thanks to Terry for the text):
> --
> "The special labels defined here came after extensive IETF evaluation
> of alternative patterns and approaches in light of the desired
> behaviour (sections
Hi Davey,
Thanks for the info. That’s enlightening.
I would not support this as either a standard or a best practice. The proposed
NHE mechanism appears to be a capability only of interest to ISPs in
countries/regions where (because of how they have chosen to set up their IPv6
peering) they are
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 11:03 AM Geoff Huston wrote:
> fwiw I agree with Warren’s proposal and Paul’s observation that such a
> registry is
> a good idea and it need not reflect only left-most labels.
>
> However, I worry that this approach does not generalise and scale well and
> the registry
>
fwiw I agree with Warren’s proposal and Paul’s observation that such a registry
is
a good idea and it need not reflect only left-most labels.
However, I worry that this approach does not generalise and scale well and the
registry
maintenance guidelines should reflect an appropriately rigorous an
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF.
Title : Serving Stale Data to Improve DNS Resiliency
Authors : David C Lawrence
