nanog mailing list archives
Re: AW: Odd policy question.
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 12:09:51 -1000
Well, RFC2010 section 2.12 hints at cache pollution attacks, and that's been discussed already. Note that I can't seem to find the same claim in RFC2870, which obsoletes 2010 (and the direction against recursive service is still there).
despite others saying that 2870 should apply to servers other than root servers, i do not support that. and that leaves aside that some root servers do not follow it very well. randy
Current thread:
- Re: AW: Odd policy question., (continued)
- Re: AW: Odd policy question. Jeffrey I. Schiller (Jan 14)
- Re: AW: Odd policy question. David W. Hankins (Jan 17)
- Re: AW: Odd policy question. Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 14)
- Re: AW: Odd policy question. Joseph S D Yao (Jan 14)
- Re: AW: Odd policy question. Martin Hannigan (Jan 13)
- Re: AW: Odd policy question. Christopher L. Morrow (Jan 13)
- Re: AW: Odd policy question. Martin Hannigan (Jan 13)
- Re: AW: Odd policy question. Florian Weimer (Jan 14)
- Re: AW: Odd policy question. David W. Hankins (Jan 13)
- Re: AW: Odd policy question. William Yardley (Jan 13)
- Re: AW: Odd policy question. Randy Bush (Jan 13)
- Re: AW: Odd policy question. David W. Hankins (Jan 13)
- Re: AW: Odd policy question. Randy Bush (Jan 13)
- Re: AW: Odd policy question. bmanning (Jan 13)