To:
ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
"D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
Date:
5 Aug 2001 16:06:47 -0000
Automatic-Legal-Notices:
Copyright 2001, D. J. Bernstein. My transmission of this message to you does not constitute a copyright waiver or any other limitation of my rights, even if you have told me otherwise.
Content-Disposition:
inline
Subject:
Re: Joint DNSEXT & NGTRANS agenda
Robert Elz writes: > That is, each site gets to choose between the degree of reliability, and > the degree of flexibility that meets its needs best. You're saying that the I.AM administrators _chose_ to make their domain only sporadically reachable by BIND 8 caches around the Internet? Sure, BIND 9 and dnscache have higher gluelessness limits, but those limits can be exceeded too. A cache can't let a single lookup consume arbitrary amounts of memory! See RFC 1034, section 5.3.3. If people start relying on A6 and DNAME, this type of failure---and the other two types described in http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/killa6.html---will become much more common. Are you going to claim that the victims _chose_ to screw up their own DNS service? ---Dan