[51767] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP address fee??
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Fri Sep 6 09:11:14 2002
To: Peter van Dijk <peter@dataloss.nl>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 06 Sep 2002 14:42:39 +0200."
<20020906124238.GH60246@dataloss.nl>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 09:10:45 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_671259064P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, 06 Sep 2002 14:42:39 +0200, Peter van Dijk <peter@dataloss.nl> said:
> That is a common misconception. Recursing resolvers couldn't care less
> if they are written according to spec (unlike old BIND versions, for
> example).
Well... way back when (18 months or so)...
On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 18:11:34 PST, Paul Vixie <vixie@mfnx.net> said:
>
> pi@vuurwerk.nl (Pim van Riezen) writes:
>
> > bogosity while updating 8.2.2-P7 to 8.2.3:
> >
> > (1) 8.2.3 Doesn't accept the "(" in the SOA string to be on the next line
> > after the IN SOA. Our script-generated zonefiles, about 45000 of them,
> > all had this.
>
> Neither do the relevant RFC's, or any other DNS implementation. Pre-8.2.3
> was simply _wrong_ to accept that syntax.
If you want to be the *next* guy who gets bit for 45K zones when the *next*
next release starts enforcing something that was illegal-but-worked-mostly,
be my guest....
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Senior Engineer
Virginia Tech
--==_Exmh_671259064P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQE9eKlUcC3lWbTT17ARAjFxAKCxIDOHJj0mqzh7+9lO/LgI7N9I7gCg+niz
4uLaYiTjmwgijBaELzzznM0=
=9TxE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_671259064P--
