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 ]
Måns Nilsson
mans.axel.nilsson at svt.se
Fri Jun 7 20:39:58 CEST 2019
Out-of-order provisioning is in 98% (my experience, see further down) of the cases a bad idea, and in transfer cases simply ends up blacking out the resource for an unnecessarily long time. I personally started verifying presence of running zone at the receiving operator when I was one of two people running redelegations of SE children, and while verification was cumbersome, the net result was that the least empowered, the end users who just wanted their domain to work, in the overwhelming majority of cases were transferred with a minimum of down time. When we did not verify, the usual order was "no email for a week, because it all bounces". Since then, people quit using email, and started living their lives online instead, and the systems people came up with all manners of clever OLTP-style provisioning tools. Or more succinctly: I think "out-of-order provisioning" is a very weak argument 2019. And, open resolvers have no place on authoritative servers. Full stop. -- Måns Nilsson SVT +46 8 7848628 Den 2019-06-07 14:12 skrev "members-discuss på uppdrag av Job Snijders" <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net på uppdrag av job at instituut.net> följande: why does it make sense? I don't see how one follows from the other. Registrars doing such checks are generally frowned upon as they get in the way of out-of-order provisioning. On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 2:07 PM Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis at linx.net> wrote: > > On 7 Jun 2019, at 12:54, Rudolf E. Steiner <r.steiner at nemox.net> wrote: > > >> Split them into different IP addresses and RIPE won’t mind. > > > > I know. But RIPE is not the internet-police. > > > > Don't block open resolvers! You can warn, if you want. > > Most registrars check the same for forward delegations so I think RIPE checking the same for reverse make sense. > > - Kurtis - > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at ripe.net > https://mailman.ripe.net/ > Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/job%40instituut.net _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss at ripe.net https://mailman.ripe.net/ Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mans.axel.nilsson%40svt.se
- 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 ]