isc - a good business
george.herbert at gmail.com
Mon May 28 20:08:56 UTC 2012
It's past given that large entities that can forge the use of BIND; at that point, engineering aside, Paul's point that the market and code have spoken is hard to deny.
Sucks when it works against us...
George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
On May 28, 2012, at 12:52, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "paul vixie" <vixie at isc.org>
>> On 5/28/2012 11:52 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> ... maybe a bit too much layer ten for my taste. ...
>> on that, we're trying to improve. for example, we used to forego
>> features that some of us found repugnant, such as nxdomain remapping /
>> ad insertion. since the result was that our software was less relevant
>> but that there was no reduction in nxdomain remapping as a result of
>> BIND not providing it.
> To clarify that a bit...
> You're saying you used to decline to include in BIND the capability to break
> the Internet by returning things other than NXDOMAIN for names which do not
> but now you're *ok* with breaking the internet, and BIND now does that?
> If that's what you mean, I'll explain to you why that's a bad layer 10 call.
> *Now*, you see, we no longer have a canonical Good Engineering Example to
> which we can point when yelling at people (and software vendors) which
> *do* permit that, to say "see? You shouldn't be doing that; it's bad."
> "The Web Is Not The Internet."
> -- jra
> Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com
> Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
> Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
> St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
More information about the NANOG