![]() |
![]() |
| idnforums | idntools |
|
|||||||
| General Discussion Feel free to talk about anything and everything in this board. |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Can anyone pick the bones out of this?
http://psg.com/lists/namedroppers/na.../msg00088.html
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iet...72bis-dname-01 http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsext/draf...m-00.diff.html
__________________
Premium Domains, large selection of most of the heavily speculated languages. PM me for details. All offers over 1 week old are null and void. dnlocal.com Last edited by Rubber Duck; 03-07-2007 at 10:16 AM. |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Can anyone pick the bones out of this?
Quote:
I think on balance we have perhaps had an oversimplistic view of this. These guys are looking that the MX records, which means that are not only aiming to get the browsing sorted but also trying to make sure it works for email as well.
__________________
Premium Domains, large selection of most of the heavily speculated languages. PM me for details. All offers over 1 week old are null and void. dnlocal.com |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Can anyone pick the bones out of this?
This is DNS - backbone of the Internet. Serious thought HAS to go into it.
![]() Miss one little problem and then once it's distributed, a hacker could take down the whole system.
__________________
It's all Greek to me. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Can anyone pick the bones out of this?
I could believe old ones not understanding DNAME. Mind you
DNAME has been on standards track for 7 1/2 years now. Any middlebox being released today should understand DNAME. If it doesn't it is well and truely *broken*. I don't believe that any middlebox will have a problem with CNAME's unles they are trying to enforce a ttl of 0 based on the presence of DNAME. Do we have any evidence of any (current) middle-ware being broken? Any middle-ware vendor that is looking at the contents of packets need to make sure they stay current with the protocol they are examining. I think, that if after, 7 1/2 years all vendors of middle-ware that examine DNS packets should be aware of DNAME. If they are not then they are negligent. We expect vendors of DNS server / clients to track changes / corrections to the DNS protocol. That one of the reasons why we publish RFC's, why we listed the RFC's that update a existing RFC. I don't see any point in not publishing DNAME's in the answer section. The barn door has been open for 7 1/2 year now. There is no point in trying to shut it now. http://psg.com/lists/namedroppers/na.../msg00091.html
__________________
Sign up with NameDrive. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|