-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Steve Atkins schrieb:
Besides the bandwidth argument (is this a valid argument?)
Not really, no. You'd need to do the packet stuffing math and
some IP range distributions and suchlike to demonstrate that
the difference in size relative to fixed overhead isn't that great,
but it's really not a big deal.
Based on this argument (including the on-the-wire format) and
considering John L.'s DNSxL BCP, it seems reasonable to keep PTR-style
lookups.
Another interesting question would be "Would you ever check
for anything smaller than a /64?".
Rarely, I guess, but that's rather a policy decision and should not have
an influence on the protocol.
And, should there be an "I'm not dead" entry (127.0.0.2), and
perhaps an "I am dead" entry or response?
And, should the response not just say "This /128 is listed", but
rather "This /128 is listed as part of this larger /52" ?
And one may want to query someting like "Which [how many, ...] addresses
in this /52 are listed?". But this is not IPv6 specific - it's something
I'd like to see for IPv6 DNSxLs as well.
I'm aware of lists that will return a 127/8 response if some threshold
of a range is listed, but a more powerful query/response mechanism would
help eg to aggregate reputation scores from multiple sources.
I suspect these questions, and many more like them, are already
being touched on as part of the DNSBL BCP stuff people are
looking at, but I've not looked at recent drafts so I'm not sure.
Partially - it is (rightly so) mostly a codification of what is
currently out there.
- -- Matthias
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFG8BPCxbHw2nyi/okRAvhiAJ9qcpaPElTVgzoLpsJGDbDo/wHCVQCg2BjI
FP6XzjIxw/G7QNEZTPxqkSo=
=CpzW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg