On 9/8/09 9:15 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message<4aa58174.6010...@mail-abuse.org>, Douglas Otis writes:
Mark,
There are valid reasons to formally make statements about a practice,
whether that rules the day is a different matter. There is a practice
promoted, in respect to IPv4, where the d
In message <4aa58174.6010...@mail-abuse.org>, Douglas Otis writes:
> On 9/5/09 5:53 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > I claim that we need to provide support for the network that people
> > are actually building. That often includes things that we would not
> > do ourselves, and that we think would
On 9/5/09 5:53 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I claim that we need to provide support for the network that people
are actually building. That often includes things that we would not
do ourselves, and that we think would be better done otherwise.
There are valid reasons to formally make statements
No hat of any kind. Not even my boater, which I will soon be sad to
put away again.
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 12:11:29PM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> People don't move house very often.
Speak for yourself!
But anyway, I think we have clearly crossed the Rubicon of folly if we
think that the IETF'
> > To: Doug Barton
> > Cc: dnsop
> > Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Draft on rDNS for IPv6: draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-00
> >
> > Windows already attempts to do UPDATE. It just does it over UDP.
> > Switching to TCP for the UPDATE message should be trivial.
>
> I gu
Mark,
On Sep 2, 2009, at 10:27 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
On Sep 2, 2009, at 5:36 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
With IPv6 the address blocks should be stable to ALL customers.
Buy stock in memory manufacturers for routing vendors.
People don't move house very often.
...
ISP's don't split POPs very o
> -Original Message-
> From: dnsop-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Douglas
> Otis
> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 2:18 PM
> To: Doug Barton
> Cc: dnsop; Shane Kerr
> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Draft on rDNS for IPv6: draft-howard-isp-ip6rd
> -Original Message-
> From: dnsop-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Mark
> Andrews
> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 9:53 PM
> To: Doug Barton
> Cc: dnsop
> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Draft on rDNS for IPv6: draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-00
>
&g
In message <200909030211.n832buty082...@drugs.dv.isc.org>, Mark Andrews writes:
>
> In message <1023e5ce-4faf-4977-84b1-e26693307...@virtualized.org>, David Conr
> ad
> writes:
> > On Sep 2, 2009, at 5:36 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > > With IPv6 the address blocks should be stable to ALL customer
In message <1023e5ce-4faf-4977-84b1-e26693307...@virtualized.org>, David Conrad
writes:
> On Sep 2, 2009, at 5:36 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > With IPv6 the address blocks should be stable to ALL customers.
>
> Buy stock in memory manufacturers for routing vendors.
People don't move house very o
On Sep 2, 2009, at 5:36 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
With IPv6 the address blocks should be stable to ALL customers.
Buy stock in memory manufacturers for routing vendors.
Sorry, wrong list.
Regards,
-drc
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://ww
In message <1251894987.3172.11867.ca...@shane-asus-laptop>, Shane Kerr writes:
> Ted,
>
> On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 08:05 -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> > The frustrating thing about this discussion is that Shane is right.
> > Personally I think rdns is useful, but there is no market pressure to
> > d
>From: "Jeremy C. Reed"
>> Now, I'm testing "On the Fly" generation of PTR and RRs and "On
>> the Fly" signing using perl + Net::DNS::SEC.
>
> I notice it creates a new signature for same look up everytime. So the
> inception and expiration is increased immediately.
It creates a new signat
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009, fujiw...@jprs.co.jp wrote:
> Now, I'm testing "On the Fly" generation of PTR and RRs and "On
> the Fly" signing using perl + Net::DNS::SEC.
I notice it creates a new signature for same look up everytime. So the
inception and expiration is increased immediately. Would it
Ted,
On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 08:05 -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> The frustrating thing about this discussion is that Shane is right.
> Personally I think rdns is useful, but there is no market pressure to
> do it right, and doing it wrong isn't that useful.
I think the idea of IP address to name ma
The frustrating thing about this discussion is that Shane is right.
Personally I think rdns is useful, but there is no market pressure to
do it right, and doing it wrong isn't that useful.
Fundamentally the problem is that the ISP owns the rdns delegation,
and they have no reason to set up
Mark,
On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 11:36 +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > Feel free to do that with networks you operate. This is a huge cost, if
> > you compare it to a zone file with a $RANGE statement, which is what we
> > have today.
>
> How is it a huge cost? Please tell me. Most of the zones would
In message <1251822081.3172.8887.ca...@shane-asus-laptop>, Shane Kerr writes:
> Mark,
>
> On Tue, 2009-09-01 at 11:52 +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > If you deploy BCP 38 to the customer level TCP is a good enough
> > authenticator for updating a reverse zone via UPDATE.
>
> As I mentioned at the
On 9/1/09 11:55 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
When IPv6 forces use of positive reputations, reverse DNS
entries become superfluous.
I'm sorry, I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Could you
elaborate?
We offer an email abuse tracking service that lists IPv4 addresses.
Defending this service
> From: Mark Andrews
>4.4) draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-00.txt
> [Alain Durand][15 min][10:30]
At the IETF meeting, I had comments, but could not comment about this topic.
Same topic was discussed in Japanese comunity this March
and then, I implemented prototype "On the Fly" DNS server.
Stephan Lagerholm wrote:
>> I was actually thinking along the lines of "what would it take to
>> actually populate a reverse zone of size /N?" where N would take
>> various flavors like 64, 60, 56, etc. as an interesting experiment.
>
> Doug,
> You will need 4 billion disks with a capacity of 400
Douglas Otis wrote:
> This issue is largely about email acceptance policies.
>
> Saying IPv6 reverse DNS is not considered a practical means to determine
> legitimate IP address use needs to be either stated or refuted.
Well, the draft seems focused on the idea of rDNS for ISPs who hand
out add
On 9/1/09 10:34 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
Shane Kerr wrote:
Perhaps it makes sense to have two documents:
1. A document which says "you won't be able to pre-populate in IPv6
reverse like you do in IPv4 - don't worry about it".
2. A document which says "if you want to provide
] On Behalf
Of Doug Barton
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 1:04 PM
To: Mark Andrews
Cc: dnsop
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Draft on rDNS for IPv6: draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-00
Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <4a9c783e.8090...@dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes:
>> Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <4a9c783e.8090...@dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes:
>> Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
>>> This was on the adgena for DNSOP at the last IETF 75. There was
>>> much discussion.
>> Sorry if I'm rehashing this unnecessarily. I did (an admittedly
>> cursory) search of my lis
Shane Kerr wrote:
> Perhaps it makes sense to have two documents:
>
> 1. A document which says "you won't be able to pre-populate in IPv6
> reverse like you do in IPv4 - don't worry about it".
> 2. A document which says "if you want to provide IPv6 reverse for
> some rea
Mark,
On Tue, 2009-09-01 at 11:52 +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> If you deploy BCP 38 to the customer level TCP is a good enough
> authenticator for updating a reverse zone via UPDATE.
As I mentioned at the IETF, this is simply not true. All because I let
someone on my network doesn't mean I want t
In message <4a9c783e.8090...@dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes:
> Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > This was on the adgena for DNSOP at the last IETF 75. There was
> > much discussion.
>
> Sorry if I'm rehashing this unnecessarily. I did (an admittedly
> cursory) search of my list archive and didn't
Mark Andrews wrote:
> This was on the adgena for DNSOP at the last IETF 75. There was
> much discussion.
Sorry if I'm rehashing this unnecessarily. I did (an admittedly
cursory) search of my list archive and didn't see anything similar.
> Not all of use agree with the analysis in that
> docume
In message <4a9c0725.40...@dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes:
> Saw this on another list and thought that the folks on this one might
> be interested: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-00
>
> Abstract
>
>In IPv4, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) commonly provide IN-
>
Saw this on another list and thought that the folks on this one might
be interested: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns-00
Abstract
In IPv4, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) commonly provide IN-
ADDR.ARPA. information by prepopulating the zone with one PTR
record for ev
31 matches
Mail list logo
