nanog mailing list archives
Re: COM/NET informational message
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org>
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 10:49:59 -0500
In a message written on Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 12:49:06PM -0500, Verd, Brad wrote:
response. The web servers refuse connections on all other UDP and TCP ports, so other network services are minimally affected.
In a message written on Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 11:04:08AM +0100, Måns Nilsson wrote:
That Verisign are taking this forward is, in the way they have chosen to do, not really elegant, but I do understand their reasoning, and to some extent appreciate that things are happening. Keep in mind that they are not breaking standards, they are extending one application.
The first bit from the original announcement caught my attention. The ongoing defense of this as not "breaking" things makes me want to point out something that I think could occur: A mail server in .COM or .NET gets an e-mail, say korean spam, that has an 8 bit high character in one or more addresses. The mail server, while not 8 bit clean, is 8 bit clean enough to pass this on to standard DNS routines. They get back no MX, but an A record, pointing to this farm. Most mail servers will go ahead and try the A record, getting connection refused. The mailer will keep retrying for several days, all the while these backing up in the queue. That's just mail. I can see a half dozen other situations where something might get one of these names and have to timeout, probably at best making a user wait longer to get an error message, at worst backing up all sorts of services if they are accidently given one of these "special" names. Was this problem discussed in the working group? -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request () tmbg org, www.tmbg.org
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- COM/NET informational message Verd, Brad (Jan 03)
- Re: COM/NET informational message E.B. Dreger (Jan 03)
- Re: COM/NET informational message Kandra Nygårds (Jan 03)
- Re: COM/NET informational message Leo Bicknell (Jan 03)
- Re: COM/NET informational message Måns Nilsson (Jan 04)
- Re: COM/NET informational message Kandra Nygårds (Jan 03)
- Re: COM/NET informational message Neil J. McRae (Jan 03)
- Re: COM/NET informational message just me (Jan 03)
- Re: COM/NET informational message Marc Slemko (Jan 03)
- Re: COM/NET informational message Mike (meuon) Harrison (Jan 03)
- Re: COM/NET informational message bert hubert (Jan 03)
- Re: COM/NET informational message Leo Bicknell (Jan 04)
- Re: COM/NET informational message bdragon (Jan 04)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: COM/NET informational message E.B. Dreger (Jan 03)
- Re: COM/NET informational message bert hubert (Jan 03)
- Re: COM/NET informational message Steven M. Bellovin (Jan 03)
- Re: COM/NET informational message E.B. Dreger (Jan 03)
- Re: COM/NET informational message Brandon Butterworth (Jan 03)
- Re: COM/NET informational message Daniel Senie (Jan 03)
- Re: COM/NET informational message Joel Rowbottom (Jan 06)
- Re: COM/NET informational message Steve Dyer (Jan 07)
- Re: COM/NET informational message Joel Rowbottom (Jan 07)
(Thread continues...)
- Re: COM/NET informational message E.B. Dreger (Jan 03)