Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 16:39:26 +0930 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Microsoft brainrot (was: r-cmds and DNS and /etc/host.conf) Message-ID: <19970929163926.38164@lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <199709290527.WAA16066@usr08.primenet.com>; from Terry Lambert on Mon, Sep 29, 1997 at 05:27:04AM %2B0000 References: <19970929101327.45644@lemis.com> <199709290527.WAA16066@usr08.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is running out of substance. On Mon, Sep 29, 1997 at 05:27:04AM +0000, Terry Lambert wrote: > I deny that there exists a problem so dificult that it can not > eventually be solved. OK. I'll buy that. When it's solved. >>>> An ISDN RR? >>> >>> A variant reverse record? >> >> RR stands for "resource record". It's the basic unit of information >> in DNS. >> >>> I assume your cache timeout everywhere is now one second, right? >> >> I don't know, do you? But I don't think you understood the question. > > I did. The point was that, given the current state of affairs with > cache timeouts, it would do no good to assign an RR based on who called > in on your transient point-to-point virtual cirvuit connection. Ah, now I understand. That's not what the ISDN records are for. They're to specify your phone number, rather the way the A records specify your IP address. > So either "ISDN" was a red herring, or you want something that you > can't have at this point in time anyway without an allocated IP > address that belongs to the caller at all times. No, it was a misunderstanding. Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970929163926.38164>