[64194] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: [Fwd: [IP] VeriSign to revive redirect service]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vivien M.)
Thu Oct 16 19:40:42 2003
From: "Vivien M." <vivienm@dyndns.org>
To: "'Paul Vixie'" <vixie@vix.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:41:49 -0400
In-Reply-To: <g3ptgwn4c5.fsf@sa.vix.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On=20
> Behalf Of Paul Vixie
> Sent: October 16, 2003 7:36 PM
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [IP] VeriSign to revive redirect service]
>=20
>=20
> ken is right and i apologize for the confusion. most of the=20
> early patches to bind8 and djbdns that i saw were dependent=20
> on the sitefinder address, and as such, would have enabled=20
> nameserver administrators to break _sitefinder_. isc's=20
> patches for bind9 enable nameserver administrators to break=20
> only the _redirection_ to sitefinder.
But aren't we back at the same argument we had a few weeks ago about =
what is
SiteFinder?
Some people argue SiteFinder is the thing at sitefinder.verisign.com =
and,
hence, is different from the wildcard that points to it. So your patch
breaks the redirection (and personally, I shudder at calling an A record
redirection, but perhaps that's a bias from years in the DNS business =
with
customers who throw that word around in all kinds of inappropriate =
contexts)
Others, like myself, would argue that SiteFinder is VeriSign marketing's
brand name for the wildcard record and the thing it points to. With that
definition, the ISC patch does break SiteFinder...
Vivien
--=20
Vivien M.
vivienm@dyndns.org
Assistant System Administrator
Dynamic DNS Network Services
http://www.dyndns.org/=20
