Olafur,
On 20-Jul-2007, at 23:11, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
Section 1.2 (issue)
I think this section is out of date, most recursive resolvers
support ENDS
by now. In a quick sample I did on my authoritative nameserver logs
I found almost 2 different addresses that asked my server
quest
As a prelude to my comments, I should say that I appreciate your
contribution, and do not intend to delay it. I think the reference
to RFC 2505 might fit properly in the history section. My reason for
advocating inclusion is like my reason for supporting the history
section in general: co
Joe,
At 11:53 24/07/2007, Joe Abley wrote:
Olafur,
On 20-Jul-2007, at 23:11, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
Section 1.2 (issue)
I think this section is out of date, most recursive resolvers
support ENDS
by now. In a quick sample I did on my authoritative nameserver logs
I found almost 2 diff
> I think it would be instructive for someone to do a measurement
> exercise on a root server and identify what proportion of non-junk
> queries are made with EDNS0.
I will try to analyze 48hour trace of M-Root taken in January this
year.
Couple of things:
- what is the definition of "non-ju
On 24-Jul-2007, at 12:53, Akira Kato wrote:
I think it would be instructive for someone to do a measurement
exercise on a root server and identify what proportion of non-junk
queries are made with EDNS0.
I will try to analyze 48hour trace of M-Root taken in January this
year.
Couple of thi
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 03:53:12PM -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:
> As we've discussed privately, this seems to be a relatively straightforward
> trade-off between cleanliness of the design versus number of tables that
> IANA will have to maintain. But by straightforward, I mean that
> understandi
Hi John,
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 10:08:54AM -0500, John Schnizlein wrote:
> contribution, and do not intend to delay it. I think the reference
> to RFC 2505 might fit properly in the history section. My reason for
> advocating inclusion is like my reason for supporting the history
> secti
What I wanted to express at the end of the session is that it would
be good to keep an eye on what operations groups (i.e., external to
the IETF) say about operating DNS. In particular I raised these two
items:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/ripe-list/2007/msg00034.html
and
ht
Akira Kato wrote:
I think it would be instructive for someone to do a measurement
exercise on a root server and identify what proportion of non-junk
queries are made with EDNS0.
I will try to analyze 48hour trace of M-Root taken in January this
year.
Couple of things:
- what is the definiti
for apnic, in Japan, I get 60:40 edns0:no-edns0. by query load.
I also can confirm that the relative IP counts show almost all of the
non-edns0 hosts *never* do EDNS0. I just checked a 1 hour snapshot and
this was very clear.
219,727 discrete IPs used the server.
of these, 176,583 did EDNS0 and
Dear colleagues,
Stephane Bortzmeyer pointed out to me this morning a problem in what
section 2.1 of the -04 draft says. Here's how it reads now:
Since the list of trusted hosts was a simple list of hostnames or
addresses, an attacker could acquire access by intercepting the DNS
query f
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 10:21:22PM -0400,
Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 73 lines which said:
> the document uses the expression "reverse query" when a more
> appropriate expression would be "query for reverse data". So the
> terminology section could be changed to clea
12 matches
Mail list logo
