Dynamic IP & cache DNS
Brad Knowles
brad.knowles at skynet.be
Wed Sep 12 01:34:24 UTC 2001
At 5:23 PM -0400 9/11/01, Kevin Darcy wrote:
> Well, "the topic in question" was a proposal for a protocol
> extension, until you tried to abruptly change it.
I don't see that as an abrupt change to the topic in question.
IMO, the state of affairs on your public nameservers is a clear
indicator of how well they would be able to make proper use of a
feature such as you are proposing.
> So is your
> point that a little zone-data sloppiness (not mine, by the way),
> mismatched delegations, missing PTR records, or the like, would
> somehow make the extension unworkable?
I wouldn't call it "a little zone-data sloppiness" or anything
remotely close to that. It would seem to me to be a pretty big mess,
actually.
That said, if you are not responsible for these machines, you
have my apologies. There's certainly a lot of garbage in these
zones, and maybe you should be put in charge of these machines.
> Please explain.
No, even the level of problems I found would not necessarily make
the feature itself unworkable, but I do feel that the state of
affairs found on your public nameservers is a very clear indication
of the amount and quality of administration being currently put into
them, and their ability to make use of any additional advanced
features, such as you are proposing.
--
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles at skynet.be>
H4sICIFgXzsCA2RtYS1zaWcAPVHLbsMwDDvXX0H0kkvbfxiwVw8FCmzAzqqj1F4dy7CdBfn7
Kc6wmyGRFEnvvxiWQoCvqI7RSWTcfGXQNqCUAnfIU+AT8OZ/GCNjRVlH0bKpguJkxiITZqes
MxwpSucyDJzXxQEUe/ihgXqJXUXwD9ajB6NHonLmNrUSK9nacHQnH097szO74xFXqtlbT3il
wMsBz5cnfCR5cEmci0Rj9u/jqBbPeES1I4PeFBXPUIT1XDSOuutFXylzrQvGyboWstCoQZyP
dxX4dLx0eauFe1x9puhoi0Ao1omEJo+BZ6XLVNaVpWiKekxN0VK2VMpmAy+Bk7ZV4SO+p1L/
uErNRS/qH2iFU+iNOtbcmVt9N16lfF7tLv9FXNj8AiyNcOi1AQAA
More information about the bind-users
mailing list