[91297] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Thu Jul 13 11:19:05 2006
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0607131429310.269@marvin.argfrp.us.uu.net>
Cc: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:18:09 -0400
To: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Jul 13, 2006, at 10:48 AM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
>> That said, no one has yet said why it is necessary, or even
>> desirable, to have a completely homogenous view of the world.
>
> I'd use one example reason of why: "Customer Service issues"
Thanx, Chris, I was waiting for someone to give this answer. (And I
couldn't figure out why no one had! :)
I don't really have a good answer. I'm not sure it's a HUUUUUUGE
problem, but I can see the argument.
Perhaps someone associated with the service can give a better answer?
> In general inconsistency is troubling to folks, I think, and in
> recursive
> DNS it's especially difficult to see as 'good' since that 'service'
> is not
> universal (not all owned/operated by one entity). In the case of
> authoritative DNS though, you are (or anyone, not just Patrick)
> free to
> goof with responses as you (or anyone) see's fit... you are afterall
> 'authoritative' for the record. In the recursive land it may be
> viewed as
> 'rude' or 'out of spec' (perhaps this is paul's issue?) to fake
> answers
> to questions.
Is it? If you type "fobar" and the domain does not exist, is it rude
to return foobar? Or is it helpful?
As a purist, I can see saying that's wrong. As a user, they like
easy. Hell, most of them us Windows & Outlook, so they clearly don't
care about things like "standards". Since they pay our bills, should
we listen to them?
Can someone show the Internet is going to collapse, or at least be
harmed, by being "rude" in this way?
--
TTFN,
patrick
