[dns-wg] NCC reverse delegation criteria
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] NCC reverse delegation criteria
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] NCC reverse delegation criteria
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Tue Jun 11 19:20:44 CEST 2019
> On 11 Jun 2019, at 17:58, Jonas Frey <jf at probe-networks.de> wrote: > >>> Run a open resolver and secure it propely >> These two things are mutually exclusive. Sorry. >> > > Well, then all of these (running open resolvers) must be wrong: > - Google > - Cloudflare > - Quad9 > ... They’ve taken business decisions that the risks of operating open resolvers are worth the rewards. And AFAICT, they don't intermingle recursive and authoritative DNS on the same server(s). > Anyway, isnt this the wrong discussion? The topic is wether RIPE should > block, warn or pass these resolvers. Indeed. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 528 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/dns-wg/attachments/20190611/0347b8d4/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] NCC reverse delegation criteria
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] NCC reverse delegation criteria
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ dns-wg Archives ]