[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 ]
Jonas Frey
jf at probe-networks.de
Tue Jun 11 20:40:05 CEST 2019
Gert, > > The time window might be small, but serving wrong answers was not > acceptable for us. > > ok, but in the automated world of today this small window is likely to be _really_ small. > > > Can you explain why it would be desirable to *have* these unified? > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster I do see 3 major benefits to combine/unify these: - "saving" IP addresses (depending of how many you run of course[1]) - less effort managing (not having multiple places for configuration thus unifiying [automated] setup) - saving ressources (servers, virtual machines, whatever they run on) - Jonas [1] reminds me of http ssl virtual host per-ip setups...from time ago... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 181 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/dns-wg/attachments/20190611/ac9ccc52/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 ]