To:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Bruce Campbell <bruce.campbell@apnic.net>
Date:
Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:23:46 +1000 (EST)
In-Reply-To:
<20000209005934.17472.qmail@cr.yp.to>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: RFC 2182 considered harmful
On 9 Feb 2000, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
djb> Olafur Gudmundsson writes:
djb> > there is nothing wrong with the RFC and it's requirement.
[on small networks with everything on one host]
djb> Are we happy when the network is inaccessible? Of course not. Users
djb> can't see the web pages. Mail delivery is deferred. These are serious
djb> problems---which third-party DNS service does _nothing_ to fix.
urm. I question the 'Mail delivery is deferred' section, particularly
when a small operation has an extended outage (ie, the owner has gone off
on holidays for a fortnight).
Having mail bounce back with some obscure message about unable to resolve
the hostname after trying continually for the past 7 or so days because
some admin thinks RFC2182 is 'not the best practice' merely reinforces the
'fly-by-night' impression such small sites tend to give out.
If they're running an e-business... oh dear, have they just lost
customers? Now if only they'd taken some precautions... such as a
third-party DNS server..
I think the point here is that you get what you pay for.
Regards,
--
Bruce Campbell <bruce.campbell@apnic.net> My opinions are my own.
Systems Administrator
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre