On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:53:30PM +1100,
Mark Andrews wrote
a message of 41 lines which said:
> Also IANA was NOT instructed to delegate to the AS112 servers. IANA
> was instructed to delegate to back hole servers and a example of
> which, the AS112 servers, was presented.
I understand it i
> On 14 Dec 2017, at 11:31 am, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> Hi Ted,
>
>> On Dec 13, 2017, at 17:14, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>
>> Can you point to the actual ambiguity? The reason we said "one or more
>> black hole servers" was to leave it up to the operator of .arpa to decide
>> which black hole server
On Dec 13, 2017, at 7:31 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
> The ambiguity is (for example) that "point to" is not a well-defined phrase,
> given that we have two documented ways of doing this in the AS112 project,
> and neither is "black hole server" which from the examples seems it refers to
> servers mad
Hi Mark,
[I'm typing this on a phone. It's going to look horrible in a real
mail client. Sorry about that.]
On Dec 13, 2017, at 20:19, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Looks like we need to open a ticket for those. But the ones people actually
> have internal zones in are correct. Check the RFC 1918 de
Looks like we need to open a ticket for those. But the ones people actually
have internal zones in are correct. Check the RFC 1918 delegations. I know
these started out being delegated to blackhole servers before the parent zones
were signed by this isn’t rocket science.
[rock:bin/tests/syst
Hi Mark,
> On Dec 13, 2017, at 17:09, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> Section 7 says:
Yes, I know. I read it.
> RFC 6303 has similar requirements and IANA was able to co-ordinate those
> delegation.
Apart from the zones originally delegated to the AS112 project, I couldn't find
a zone specified in
Hi Ted,
> On Dec 13, 2017, at 17:14, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> Can you point to the actual ambiguity? The reason we said "one or more
> black hole servers" was to leave it up to the operator of .arpa to decide
> which black hole servers and how many of them. That was a deliberate
> choice, not
On Dec 13, 2017, at 4:46 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
> The document actually specifies quite clearly that the delegation "MUST NOT
> include a DS record" which seems to be different from what you are saying. It
> also specifies that the delegation "MUST point to one or more black hole
> servers", whic
Section 7 says:
"In order to be fully functional, there must be a delegation of 'home.arpa' in
the '.arpa' zone [RFC3172]. This delegation MUST NOT be signed, MUST NOT
include a DS record, and MUST point to one or more black hole servers, for
example BLACKHOLE-1.IANA.ORG and BLACKHOLE-2.IANA.OR
On 11 Dec 2017, at 19:50, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Dec 11, 2017, at 11:17 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
>> Note though that the homenet document specifically requests a delegation.
>
> Please do not read more into the document than was intended. What Mark is
> saying looks to me like an accurate represe
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 03:16:46PM -0800,
Kim Davies wrote
a message of 22 lines which said:
> the delegation to AS112 was considered as the best short-term
> approach even if it is not without its own difficulties.
Interesting information, thanks.
But the original question was about privacy
On Dec 11, 2017, at 11:17 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
> Note though that the homenet document specifically requests a delegation.
Please do not read more into the document than was intended. What Mark is
saying looks to me like an accurate representation of what we intended. The
goal is simply for
You don’t add the DNAME to the ARPA domain because it does not add the insecure
delegation that is REQUIRED. You add the DNAME to the HOME.ARPA domain if you
really want to redirect the traffic. For some reason IANA wants to make this
more complicated than it needs to be. You don’t need to co
Hi Stéphane,
On 11 Dec 2017, at 04:18, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 01:10:20AM -0800,
> Paul Vixie wrote
> a message of 31 lines which said:
>
>> we have no way to assure that they hear a request that they add more
>> secondary DNS zones to such servers. so if we deleg
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 01:10:20AM -0800,
Paul Vixie wrote
a message of 31 lines which said:
we have no way to assure that they hear a request that they add more
secondary DNS zones to such servers. so if we delegate more zones
that way, there will be a lot of
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 01:10:20AM -0800,
Paul Vixie wrote
a message of 31 lines which said:
> we have no way to assure that they hear a request that they add more
> secondary DNS zones to such servers. so if we delegate more zones
> that way, there will be a lot of SERVFAIL except for servers
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
...
Does it mean the privacy problem is solved? Or simply overlooked? Can
we delegate RFC 6761 special-use domains such as .internal to AS 112?
any AS112 operator can tell you that the world doesn't care about
privacy, based on the amount of organizationally sensit
17 matches
Mail list logo
