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/[email protected]/
[atlas] Thoughts on allowing newer DNS RR queries?
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] Thoughts on allowing newer DNS RR queries?
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] Thoughts on allowing newer DNS RR queries?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jaap Akkerhuis
jaap at NLnetLabs.nl
Thu Feb 20 19:54:48 CET 2014
In the bad old days introducing a new type was deemed risky because a lot of middleware, such as caches and firewalls had type-specific code. I was wanting to test the claim that most modern middleware is type-oblivious and "just works" with new types. So ideally, it would be a type that doesn't exist or one that has just recently been published. The latest ones are according <http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/dns-parameters.xhtml#dns-parameters-4> EUI48 and EUI64 (RFC 7043) and then there are a couple (some which are still draft not even mentioned in the list above) which are still draft or just proposed: NINFO RKEY CDS UR and TA. /** draft-reid-dnsext-zs */ LDNS_RR_TYPE_NINFO = 56, /** draft-reid-dnsext-rkey */ LDNS_RR_TYPE_RKEY = 57, /** draft-ietf-dnsop-trust-history */ LDNS_RR_TYPE_TALINK = 58, /** draft-barwood-dnsop-ds-publis */ LDNS_RR_TYPE_CDS = 59, /** DNSSEC Trust Authorities */ LDNS_RR_TYPE_TA = 32768, Enjoy! jaap
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] Thoughts on allowing newer DNS RR queries?
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] Thoughts on allowing newer DNS RR queries?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]