IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] afasterinternet.com trial and draft-vandergaast-edns-client-subnet-00

Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de> Tue, 06 September 2011 13:30 UTC

Return-Path: <fweimer@bfk.de>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D717D21F886A for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 06:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.014
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.014 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.235, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nTjxcvzj8erR for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 06:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx01.bfk.de (mx01.bfk.de [193.227.124.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3BD121F87C9 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 06:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx00.int.bfk.de ([10.119.110.2]) by mx01.bfk.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) id 1R0vlS-0008NA-1H; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 13:32:34 +0000
Received: by bfk.de with local id 1R0vlR-0002uB-Rx; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 13:32:33 +0000
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de>
To: Matt McCutchen <matt@mattmccutchen.net>
References: <20110830162134.GB84494@shinkuro.com> <CAMbvoa+nh5k8eOA-XRwBD5oxm17+=Q4gCagq0OBS5OEQX=g1sw@mail.gmail.com> <20110831031256.GA98758@shinkuro.com> <CANKkrzE3P-S_djGXReFz8dDGi6BtzD75oXw7azY6DBiaBNqW9Q@mail.gmail.com> <1314763320.2774.5.camel@localhost>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 13:32:33 +0000
In-Reply-To: <1314763320.2774.5.camel@localhost> (Matt McCutchen's message of "Wed, 31 Aug 2011 00:01:58 -0400")
Message-ID: <82k49lg5ji.fsf@mid.bfk.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>, dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] afasterinternet.com trial and draft-vandergaast-edns-client-subnet-00
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 13:30:57 -0000

* Matt McCutchen:

> From the peanut gallery, having a private use range seems like a
> no-brainer.

Some EDNS0 server-side implementations treat unknown option codes as
hard errors.  I'm not sure how widespread they are (but I believe at
least one of them is still under security support).  If widespread, it
would make it difficult to define new option codes and make them work.
A private use range implies an implicit promise that you can actually
use it for experiments, and this may not be the case here.

-- 
Florian Weimer                <fweimer@bfk.de>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH       http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstraße 100              tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe             fax: +49-721-96201-99

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email