IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] Fwd: RFC 2308 & RFC 4035

Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org> Sun, 27 February 2011 20:58 UTC

Return-Path: <vixie@isc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34E983A6842 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:58:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p7W4cq-M-tfk for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:58:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nsa.vix.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:bb:230:48ff:fe5a:2f38]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D8663A6828 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:58:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nsa.vix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nsa.vix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC3C6A1059 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:59:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vixie@isc.org)
From: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>
To: dnsext@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: Your message of "27 Feb 2011 20:13:42 GMT." <20110227201342.7426.qmail@joyce.lan>
References: <20110227201342.7426.qmail@joyce.lan>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.2; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22)
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:59:06 +0000
Message-ID: <95991.1298840346@nsa.vix.com>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Fwd: RFC 2308 & RFC 4035
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:58:11 -0000

> Date: 27 Feb 2011 20:13:42 -0000
> From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
> 
> >i expect that most dnsbl's who evolve into ipv6 will also evolve a /64
> >"wildcard" strategy to cope with malware-controllable low order bits.
> 
> I expect that WLs will be more important than BLs, but they both have
> the same cache blasting problem if there's a different query for every
> IP.

having been sued out of the reputation business early on, i know the whole
of the sherman antitrust act as well as i know the vein pattern on the back
of my hand.  there's a lot more trouble waiting for a WL operator than for
a BL operator.  noting, IANAL and this is not a technical thread any more.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email