This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/members-discuss@ripe.net/
[members-discuss] New (silent) reverse dns checks
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] New (silent) reverse dns checks
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] New (silent) reverse dns checks
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jonas Frey
ripe at probe-networks.de
Fri Jun 7 14:24:15 CEST 2019
> > Most registrars check the same for forward delegations so I think > RIPE checking the same for reverse make sense. > Kurt, thats exactly what i wrote previously. Some do check and if they do, they warn - none block. And so should RIPE - but RIPE blocks. There was no notification from RIPE about this change (atleast we didnt see it) and as that it breaks existing functionality. If RIPE really wants to deny open resolvers (for whatever reason), why not notify members about the upcoming change so people have appropiate time to apply changes? I'd be OK with that, however i'd prefer RIPE to not block at all. (RIPE should be neutral on that) -Jonas
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] New (silent) reverse dns checks
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] New (silent) reverse dns checks
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]