nanog mailing list archives
Re: houston.rr.com MX fubar?
From: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <ops.lists () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:08:28 +0530
On Jan 14, 2008 5:08 PM, Tony Finch <dot () dotat at> wrote:
the "." convention then it will look up the root's AAAA and A records, which is stupid but should cause the message to bounce as desired. However if it does implement the convention (just like the "usage rules" for a SRV record target of "." in RFC 2782) then it can skip the address lookups and save the root some work. (It can also produce a better error message.) This really ought to be explained in draft-delany-nullmx.
The draft died. And I think this stuff about looking up A / AAAA for the root was certainly raised in the IETF sometime back. Not that there isnt enough junk traffic (and DDoS etc) coming the roots' way that this kind of single lookup would get lost in the general noise .. Might want to revive it and take it forward? I rather liked that draft (and Mark Delany cites me in the acknowledgements as I suggested a few wording changes for the definition of a null MX - dot terminated null string, STD13 etc, during his drafting of the document) --srs -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists () gmail com)
Current thread:
- houston.rr.com MX fubar? Chris Boyd (Jan 12)
- Re: houston.rr.com MX fubar? Steve Atkins (Jan 12)
- Re: houston.rr.com MX fubar? Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jan 12)
- Re: houston.rr.com MX fubar? Tony Finch (Jan 13)
- Re: houston.rr.com MX fubar? Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jan 13)
- Re: houston.rr.com MX fubar? Tony Finch (Jan 14)
- Re: houston.rr.com MX fubar? Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jan 14)
- Re: houston.rr.com MX fubar? Mark Andrews (Jan 14)
- Re: houston.rr.com MX fubar? Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jan 14)
- Re: houston.rr.com MX fubar? Randy Bush (Jan 14)
- Re: houston.rr.com MX fubar? Mark Andrews (Jan 14)
- Re: houston.rr.com MX fubar? Tony Finch (Jan 15)
- Re: houston.rr.com MX fubar? Tony Finch (Jan 15)
- Re: houston.rr.com MX fubar? Tony Finch (Jan 13)