[119207] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: What DNS Is Not
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Andersen)
Mon Nov 9 20:08:36 2009
From: David Andersen <dga@cs.cmu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <6F51B50ECF32084788B9B3A8469A71B52916559D1E@EXCHCLUSTER1-02.win.slac.stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 20:01:29 -0500
To: "Buhrmaster, Gary" <gtb@slac.stanford.edu>
Cc: "'bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com'" <bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com>,
NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Nov 9, 2009, at 7:52 PM, Buhrmaster, Gary wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
>> [mailto:bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com]
>> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 4:32 PM
>> To: Patrick W. Gilmore
>> Cc: NANOG list
>> Subject: Re: What DNS Is Not
>
> ...
>
>> notbeing Paul, its rude of me to respond - yet you posted this
>> to a public list ... so here goes.
>>
>> Why do you find your behaviour in your domains acceptable and yet
>> the same behaviour in others zones to be "a Bad Thing" and
>> should be
>> stopped?
>
> Ok, devils advocate argument.
>
> Is there is a difference between being a domain "owner"
> (Patrick wanting to wildcard the domain he has paid for),
> and a domain "custodian" (Verisign for the .com example)
> in whether wildcards are ever acceptable in the DNS
> responses you provide?
I think this is spot on.
In particular: Patrick, for some domains at least, can implement a
wildcard with the full cooperation and agreement of all of the
customers of sub-zones within his domain. Particularly if he doesn't
resell any subdomains within it. Verisign cannot. [1]
[1] As a customer of .com, my own disagreement on this is sufficient
to prove that they don't have unanimous agreement. :-)
-Dave
