From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 2 01:14:23 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADCE616A418; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 01:14:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org) Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (drugs.dv.isc.org [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:820:214:22ff:fed9:fbdc]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6205413C469; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 01:14:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org) Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l721EMvl095981; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 11:14:22 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from marka@drugs.dv.isc.org) Message-Id: <200708020114.l721EMvl095981@drugs.dv.isc.org> To: Doug Barton , FreeBSD Current , FreeBSD Stable From: Mark Andrews Mail-Followup-To: Mark Andrews , Doug Barton , FreeBSD Current , FreeBSD Stable In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:44:04 -0400." <20070802004404.GG59008@menantico.com> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:14:22 +1000 Sender: marka@isc.org Cc: Subject: Re: default dns config change causing major poolpah X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 01:14:23 -0000 > Mark Andrews wrote: > > > > > I don't think that "all" of the drama could have been avoided in any > > > case, there is too much emotion surrounding this issue. > > > > I'll concur with Doug on this. I've been discussing doing > > just this for the last 10+ years. > > Why don't you update 2870 then to make it so? Why don't you? You seem to be the one worried about it :-) I want to get draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones through first before dealing with the issue of how to get every iterative resolver serving the root. You will note that dealing with traffic at the root is left out of draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones. > If all the roots provided it and were required to, there's no > problem. But current best practice as defined by 2870 are > for roots to only answer AXFRs from other roots. > > How can you advocate an OS pushing a configuration that isn't > guaranteed to be functional? I understand the odds of it > breaking, and I understand the benefits. That's not the issue. There is a difference between saying we should do this and just doing it. Part of process is to get consenus that this is reasonable or at least won't hurt and working what needs to be changed to make it happen. > This is a configuration that should be guaranteed to work for 2 > years after every OS release that includes it. > > -- > Skip > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@isc.org