IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] RFC 3484 section 6 rule 9 causing more operational problems

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Wed, 04 March 2009 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 310F43A6C8F for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 07:30:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.495, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 0sCImzpGKhSe for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 07:30:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-0.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-0.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA09C3A6C94 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 07:30:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:42299) by ppsw-0.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.150]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1Let3P-0000nl-0q (Exim 4.70) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:30:39 +0000
Received: from fanf2 (helo=localhost) by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local-esmtp id 1Let3P-00010C-7q (Exim 4.67) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:30:39 +0000
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:30:39 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] RFC 3484 section 6 rule 9 causing more operational problems
In-Reply-To: <824oy94abg.fsf@mid.bfk.de>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.0903041526330.8701@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <alpine.LSU.2.00.0903041400220.8701@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <824oy94abg.fsf@mid.bfk.de>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: Tony Finch <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:30:13 -0000

On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> I assume you are referring to IPv4 address sorting.

It's also wrong to sort IPv6 addresses by longest matching prefix (unless
the match is very long) because IPv6 addresses are also not allocated
according to network topology.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS.
MODERATE OR GOOD.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email