IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Re: draft-ietf-dnsop-reflectors-are-evil-05.txt

Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com> Thu, 13 December 2007 16:33 UTC

Return-path: <dnsop-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2r0W-0001kF-1F; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:33:56 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2r0U-0001k8-OL for dnsop@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:33:54 -0500
Received: from cirrus.av8.net ([130.105.36.66]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2r0U-0001J9-Dr for dnsop@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:33:54 -0500
Received: from [130.105.12.10] ([130.105.12.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by cirrus.av8.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lBDGXqrv008383 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:33:52 -0500
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:33:51 -0500
From: Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com>
X-X-Sender: dean@citation2.av8.net
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Re: draft-ietf-dnsop-reflectors-are-evil-05.txt
In-Reply-To: <20071213135127.GA27469@nic.fr>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0712131126480.27223-100000@citation2.av8.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab
Cc: Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE>, IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/dnsop>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dnsop-bounces@ietf.org

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> directly to say that the only solution is to allow ORNS, ignoring the
> other solutions mentioned in the draft.

Instead of more tedious acronyms and jargon, how about just using 'open
recursors' to mean 'open recursors'?

Anyway, the comment was good. It is the solutions in the draft that are 
bad, for the reasons explained in the comment.

The notion that 'no one needs open recursors' has not been supported by
clear analysis in the draft. There are legitimate reasons to run open
recursors.  I think a lot of people on DNSOP share this view.

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   



_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email