nanog mailing list archives
Re: AW: Odd policy question.
From: "David W. Hankins" <David_Hankins () isc org>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 14:33:12 -0800
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:09:51PM -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
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.
I have to agree, with the exclusion that some people, having specific requirements that are somewhat similar to root service requirements, find 2870 and 2010 advice useful. My intent here was to point out that all documented reasoning for this practice is unfulfilling. I'm curious if the rest of my response was lost on you due to its verbosity? -- David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: AW: Odd policy question., (continued)
- 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)