[ratelimits] Upwards referrals Re: error in amplification attack

[P Vixie]

That's what I meant. Thanks ed.

Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz> wrote:

>At 11:22 +0000 11/14/12, Tony Finch wrote:
>>P Vixie <paul at redbarn.org> wrote:
>>
>>>  An upward delegation is actually a protocol error
>>
>>Gosh, really? It seems to be required by the name server algorithm in
>RFC
>>1034 section 4.3.2 (except if the server is authoritative-only).
>
>Not a protocol-error but an error-in-the-protocol.  (Referring, no 
>pun intended, to the root-referral message used to indicate a server 
>is lame.)
>-- 
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>Edward Lewis
>NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at
>+1-571-434-5468
>
>2012...time to reuse those 1984 calendars!
>_______________________________________________
>ratelimits mailing list
>ratelimits at lists.redbarn.org
>http://lists.redbarn.org/mailman/listinfo/ratelimits

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.redbarn.org/pipermail/ratelimits/attachments/20121115/c306f93a/attachment.htm>