Dynamic IP & cache DNS

[Brad Knowles]

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