North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: RFC 2870's applicability (Re: Deaggregating foremergency purposes)
At 4:19 AM +0000 2002/08/07, Paul Vixie wrote:
I have since learned that there is an update to 2010 in the works, which should be more acceptable to the root server operators. As such, I will stop comparing the current state of the servers against 2870.RFC 2870 had a lot of cooks, and the end result is somewhat descriptive of TLD servers but is anywhere from mildly to wildly wrong with respect to the root servers.
They're welcome to run their own servers however they like. However, if they want to arbitrarily cut off their networks from "subversive" networks around the world, then I feel that they should voluntarily give up their root nameservers because they are unable to adhere to the spirit of the standards by which they are supposed to be operating (whatever RFC or document you use as that standard).There's no way to change this, really, and one of the ways to not change it would be to write an RFC. USGov has its own way of doing things. I don't expect anybody to tell them they have to give up their root servers as a result. (Except maybe Karl or Jim, I guess.)
124 ip 184.108.40.206/0 0.0.0.0/0 209 12466 0 0 126Nope, none of those are mine. I was primarily talking about the other machines on the same network, and the other services that I strongly suspect that some of the machines are running. Nmap scans would have a good chance of turning up some results.
Yeah, I think I read that paper. I understand, and now I fully agree. The problem is that there are a dearth of good tools (like queryperf) to help measure the jitter of the RTTs of low-rate DNS queries.Evi gave a *wonderful* talk at NANOG a year or so back in which she explored the many bad flows seen on F. Anyone who runs benchmarks against root servers would be a "bad flow". So it's no wonder that your testing isn't complete :-).
I disagree. Certainly, Daniel Karrenberg has publicly disagreed with this use of RFC 2870. Check the archives of the RIPE DNS Working Group.Allow me to present information to the contrary. I co-authored RFC 2010, but I had no part in RFC 2870 and in fact had not even read it until well after it was published. I consider it inadequate and inaccurate for root service, while nonetheless acknowledging its applicability toward some ccTLD servers.
I was comparing the current state of affairs against the wrong document. I await the publication of the right document.Clearly, you're way ahead of yourself.
Brad Knowles, <firstname.lastname@example.org>
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E W+++(--) N+ !w---
O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++)
tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)