From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 1 22:56:22 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78E2616A419 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 22:56:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx22.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F05A213C4D0 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 22:56:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 12781 invoked by uid 399); 1 Aug 2007 22:56:21 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO lap.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTP; 1 Aug 2007 22:56:21 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 Message-ID: <46B10F93.10706@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:56:19 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (X11/20070723) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jo Rhett References: <46B01D5E.6050004@psg.com> <20070801110727.GC59008@menantico.com> <46B0EDEA.8050608@FreeBSD.org> <20070801205211.GA12218@svcolo.com> In-Reply-To: <20070801205211.GA12218@svcolo.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.1 OpenPGP: id=D5B2F0FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: FreeBSD Current , FreeBSD Stable Subject: Re: default dns config change causing major poolpah X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 22:56:22 -0000 Jo Rhett wrote: > On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 01:32:42PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: >>> This is about on par with >> manufacturer> selling SOHO routers that synchronize their >>> clocks using stratum-1 NTP servers. >> I don't really think that analogy holds up, given that those who >> run public stratum-1 NTP servers specifically request that >> individual hosts not sync from them. > > The analogy is more true than you believe. Someone told you on > this very same list that it was not allowed, If you're talking about "Volker" I have already explained at great length why he was flat out wrong on just about every particular. Anyone interested can read the archives around 7/17. > and you argued that it wasn't denied therefore it should be okay. > You're doing an excellent job of ignoring contrary opinions and > reinventing facts. Actually I have not ignored contrary opinions, I've stated explicitly that there are contrary opinions. Anyone interested is free to read the archives of the dns-operations list where I think both sides of the argument are presented pretty well. But there is a difference between "yes, there are contrary opinions that I don't agree with based on my actual experience with the topic" and "If anyone disagrees with something, it must be wrong." I would like to suggest that if you are actually interested in a debate about the _merits_ of the change that you look at my post here:http://lists.oarci.net/pipermail/dns-operations/2007-August/001856.html, then read the paper by David Malone that is mentioned in that article, then read the rest of the thread on that list. If you don't have at least that much background on the topic we're just wasting time here. > And the very same root operators are on dns-operations list telling > you not to do this, and you are ignoring them there too. Three root operators (two of whom are in named.conf right now) have spoken up on that list. Of the two that actually offer AXFR, one has said paraphrasing "I hate this idea, but I won't disable AXFR because of it." One has said, "please remove "B" from your list/distribution until you have received permission from the FreeBSD community that this change is what they want." Since that condition is so incredibly arbitrary as to be essentially meaningless, I am going to remove that server. >> If there is a consensus based on solid technical reasons (not >> emotion or FUD) to back the root zone slaving change out, I'll be >> glad to do so. I think it would be very useful at this point if >> those who _like_ the change would speak up publicly as well. > > Everyone has spoken up, and you've ignored every one of them. Are you ignoring the people who've spoken up saying that they like the change, and that they think it's a good idea? Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection