[162091] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Open Resolver Problems
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nilsson)
Tue Apr 2 04:55:51 2013
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 10:55:34 +0200
From: =?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nilsson <mansaxel@besserwisser.org>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1304020522390.23668@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--7ZAtKRhVyVSsbBD2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: Open Resolver Problems Date: Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 05:25:53AM +=
0200 Quoting Mikael Abrahamsson (swmike@swm.pp.se):
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013, M=C3=A5ns Nilsson wrote:
>=20
> >What percentage of the SOHO NAT boxes actually are full-service
> >resolvers? I was under the impression that most were mere
> >forwarders; just pushing queries on toward the DHCP'd full service
> >resolvers of the ISP.
>=20
> What does that help? They can still be amplifiers, it's just that
> now the ISP resolver will see the resolving load as well.
But, yes, of course. Nobody would be so stupid so ast o accept queries
on the WAN side and answer them? Would they? </innocent>
--=20
M=C3=A5ns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668
My vaseline is RUNNING...
--7ZAtKRhVyVSsbBD2
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlFanQYACgkQ02/pMZDM1cUAwQCePMrooMsvf9leLlbwU+hJGTZD
CUQAn3eFRNc2ByY6BfmS51FSjOPuTL9u
=XuzT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--7ZAtKRhVyVSsbBD2--
