nanog mailing list archives
Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...
From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow () verizonbusiness com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:48:06 +0000 (GMT)
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
That said, no one has yet said why it is necessary, or even desirable, to have a completely homogenous view of the world.
I'd use one example reason of why: "Customer Service issues" So If grandma Jane goes to fobar.com (which gets corrected/redirected/blah) to foobar.com and sees some content she really likes she may tell grandma June. Grandma June goes to fobar.com and gets the IE error message saying 'site does not exist. She calls her ISP to find out why the site is down. This is a very oversimplified example, I admit. It does show a simple example though of inconsistency and why that could be 'bad' or atleast problematic. (It might also argue for universal adoption of this technology, which I still 'just dont like', which also might be the crazy pills) In general inconsistency is troubling to folks, I think, and in recursive DNS it's especially difficult to see as 'good' since that 'service' is not universal (not all owned/operated by one entity). In the case of authoritative DNS though, you are (or anyone, not just Patrick) free to goof with responses as you (or anyone) see's fit... you are afterall 'authoritative' for the record. In the recursive land it may be viewed as 'rude' or 'out of spec' (perhaps this is paul's issue?) to fake answers to questions. I wonder about performance and impact and the legittimacy of replying to a 'typo' that isn't really a 'typo' ? The claims to 'fix phishing' (phishing protection) that is doing things like knowing what a phishing name is, I presume this works on some list of names currently in use (from antiphishing.org for example) Is there a timeout on these entries? What about names that are the shared host for lots of users? (members.aol.com for instance) There are a host if issues here, simple typo correction isn't going to find/solve/know about most of them. At the right level of the hierarchy this service certainly could be 'nice' (or not objectionable) the choice part is a big 'nice' for the service, I admit. I find it hard to believe an enterprise or MSO would offer this as a blanket answer though, again crazy-pills might be acting up again though. -chris
Current thread:
- Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel..., (continued)
- Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel... David Ulevitch (Jul 11)
- Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel... Peter Dambier (Jul 11)
- Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel... Patrick W. Gilmore (Jul 11)
- RE: Sitefinder II, the sequel... Daniel Golding (Jul 11)
- Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel... Simon Waters (Jul 12)
- Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel... Patrick W. Gilmore (Jul 12)
- Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel... David Ulevitch (Jul 12)
- Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel... Simon Waters (Jul 13)
- Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel... Patrick W. Gilmore (Jul 13)
- Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel... Chris Woodfield (Jul 13)
- Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel... Christopher L. Morrow (Jul 13)
- Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel... Patrick W. Gilmore (Jul 13)
- Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel... Larry Smith (Jul 13)
- Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel... Mark Jeftovic (Jul 13)
- Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel... Christopher L. Morrow (Jul 13)
- Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel... Joe Greco (Jul 13)
- Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel... John Payne (Jul 13)
- Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel... Joe Greco (Jul 13)
- Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel... Barry Shein (Jul 13)
- Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel... Edward B. DREGER (Jul 14)
- RE: Sitefinder II, the sequel... Matthew Kaufman (Jul 13)