nanog mailing list archives
Re: RFC1712 - is anyone actually using GPOS RR's ?
From: Andrew Brown <twofsonet () graffiti com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 09:50:37 -0500
As subject says, is anyone actually using these ?
i don't think so. it's still in "experimental" status, and the bind code has only this to say about it: include/arpa/nameser.h: ns_t_gpos = 27, /* Geographical position (withdrawn). */ include/arpa/nameser_compat.h:#define T_GPOS ns_t_gpos lib/resolv/res_debug.c: {ns_t_gpos, "GPOS", "geographical position (withdrawn)"}, so i don't think anyone ever bothered with it at all.
We were thinking of adding this to our automated dns scripts ... but if nobody actually uses them, we don't want to spend time on it ...
use LOC (rfc1876) instead. it's more or less the same, but with more info. -- |-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----| codewarrior () daemon org * "ah! i see you have the internet twofsonet () graffiti com (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!" andrew () crossbar com * "information is power -- share the wealth."
Current thread:
- RFC1712 - is anyone actually using GPOS RR's ? Jesper Skriver (Nov 15)
- Re: RFC1712 - is anyone actually using GPOS RR's ? Andrew Brown (Nov 15)
- Re: RFC1712 - is anyone actually using GPOS RR's ? Jesper Skriver (Nov 15)
- Re: RFC1712 - is anyone actually using GPOS RR's ? bmanning (Nov 15)
- Re: RFC1712 - is anyone actually using GPOS RR's ? Andrew Brown (Nov 15)
- Re: RFC1712 - is anyone actually using GPOS RR's ? Jesper Skriver (Nov 15)
- Re: RFC1712 - is anyone actually using GPOS RR's ? David Hares (Nov 18)
- Re: RFC1712 - is anyone actually using GPOS RR's ? Andrew Brown (Nov 15)