U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Celebrating Veterans Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Internet
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-29-2010, 01:02 AM
 
26,158 posts, read 15,731,811 times
Reputation: 17235

Advertisements

"Internet users face the risk of losing their internet connections on 5 May when the domain name system switches over to a new, more secure protocol.

While the vast majority of users are expected to endure the transition to DNSSEC smoothly, users behind badly designed or poorly configured firewalls, or those subscribing to dodgy ISPs could find themselves effectively disconnected...."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/13/dnssec

Run the test here > http://labs.ripe.net/content/testing...ly-size-issues

My results:

Announced buffer size: 4096 bytes

Measured buffer size: 3839 bytes

EDNS enabled: yes

DNSSEC enabled: yes

*Red* Your resolver announced a buffer size bigger than the largest packet that it can receive.


What does this mean,WILL I BE OK???


I DONT KNOW WHY THEY HAVE TO CHANGE THINGS,IT WAS WORKING FINE THE WAY IS WAS FOR YEARS!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-29-2010, 02:06 AM
 
Location: In my comfy place
29 posts, read 43,994 times
Reputation: 15
is this for reals or you just playin wit me???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2010, 03:52 AM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
3,685 posts, read 8,491,847 times
Reputation: 2978
The vast, overwhelming majority of home internet users just use their ISP's DNS server, or perhaps a public DNS server such as the one's Google provides (8.8.8.8 for example). These users will not be affected by the adoption of DNSSEC, unless the organization who runs their DNS server was not ready for the switch. If your ISP is really dodgy, maybe you should write down the IP addresses of a few public DNS servers in case your ISP really buggers things up.

When they talk about "incompatible firewalls", they're talking about firewalls that pass DNS requests from a DNS server you are running, inside your firewall, to the outside world. Most of us do not run our own DNS server. Our DHCP clients get pointed at our router, and our router talks to our ISP's DNS server. The "incompatible firewall" problem doesn't affect people who don't run their own DNS server.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2010, 03:11 PM
 
26,158 posts, read 15,731,811 times
Reputation: 17235
Thats good to know!!!!!

Thank you bud
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2010, 07:23 PM
 
Location: Matthews, NC
14,693 posts, read 23,391,206 times
Reputation: 14342
Yet another example of the media trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. They blew their wad on Y2K, though. I don't think they will ever get the public as afraid about nothing as they did then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2010, 11:08 PM
 
26,158 posts, read 15,731,811 times
Reputation: 17235
Well this maight cause slowdowns as BIGGER PACKETS will be sent to the DNS servers!!

Perhaps finding a DNS server WITHOUT THIS CRAP ENABLED,is the way to go!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2010, 09:36 AM
Bo Bo won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Tenth Edition (Apr-May 2014). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Ohio
16,892 posts, read 33,621,908 times
Reputation: 13827
Another article about this.

Warning: Why your Internet might fail on May 5 - Security - Technology - News - iTnews.com.au
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2010, 05:39 PM
 
26,158 posts, read 15,731,811 times
Reputation: 17235
This whole thing is stupid and UNCALLED FOR in my opinion....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2010, 08:19 AM
 
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
11,813 posts, read 13,951,598 times
Reputation: 8042
Quote:
Originally Posted by bs13690 View Post
Yet another example of the media trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. They blew their wad on Y2K, though. I don't think they will ever get the public as afraid about nothing as they did then.
Y2K was the best. I enjoyed that paranoia. A lot of people made a lot of money on it, though. lol

Computers were going to think it was 1900, right?
That very phrase is contradictory. "Computers were going to think...."
A computer doesn't know that 00 is a lower number then 99. It just knows that it is the next number in the sequence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2010, 04:30 PM
 
Location: Mableton, GA USA (NW Atlanta suburb, 4 miles OTP)
11,319 posts, read 22,730,215 times
Reputation: 3895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peregrine View Post
Y2K was the best. I enjoyed that paranoia. A lot of people made a lot of money on it, though. lol

Computers were going to think it was 1900, right?
That very phrase is contradictory. "Computers were going to think...."
A computer doesn't know that 00 is a lower number then 99. It just knows that it is the next number in the sequence.
There are several issues. If you store a date as two digits and prepend a "19" to the year field, then 01/01/00 will appear as 01/01/1900 in many displays. There were many occurrences of this.

We had a serious but more subtle issue in the application I worked on at the time which showed up in testing ... most of the system stored date/time info as a large integer representing accumulated minutes past a given start date (I think Jan 1, 1967), and the conversation table in the library routine that almost all applications used to convert back and forth had arbitrarily been created only through December 31, 1999.

The system was originally brought online itself in 1967, though, so I can cut them some slack for choosing to build a table only 33 years into the future.

And yes, it's still running, at least if United Airlines still runs UNIMATIC in its original TIP+AIS environment ... the NWA version is being turned off by Delta (hiss) and replaced with whatever Delta uses. Too bad; I suspect WorldFlight is a better system in some ways. Hopefully Delta's MGL system is at least smart enough to allow FLEX (reduced thrust) takeoffs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Internet
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:20 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top