Re: DNSSEC HW Support

2010-03-16 Thread Warren Kumari
On Mar 16, 2010, at 11:39 AM, Niobos wrote: On 2010-03-16 15:57, prock...@yahoo.com wrote: I'm trying to figure out how many tests I need to run for an individual product (layer 2, 3, 4, and 7) before I can say it is completely DNSSEC compliant. By definition, any layer 2, 3 and 4 product is

Re: DNSSEC HW Support

2010-03-16 Thread Niobos
On 2010-03-16 15:57, prock...@yahoo.com wrote: > I'm trying to figure out how many tests I need to run for an > individual product (layer 2, 3, 4, and 7) before I can say it is > completely DNSSEC compliant. By definition, any layer 2, 3 and 4 product is DNSSEC-agnostic: DNS with or without SEC-ext

Re: DNSSEC HW Support

2010-03-16 Thread prock...@yahoo.com
> > I'd like to get your feedback on > the following thoughts regarding DNSSEC HW support. > > > > Any layer 2 or 3 devices forwarding frames or packets > should not be affected by the implementation of DNSSEC > regardless of the type of protocol (TCP/UDP) or

Re: DNSSEC HW Support

2010-03-16 Thread Gary Wallis
I'd like to get your feedback on the following thoughts regarding DNSSEC HW support. Any layer 2 or 3 devices forwarding frames or packets should not be affected by the implementation of DNSSEC regardless of the type of protocol (TCP/UDP) or the query size (large or small). Layer 4 de

DNSSEC HW Support

2010-03-16 Thread prock...@yahoo.com
I'd like to get your feedback on the following thoughts regarding DNSSEC HW support. Any layer 2 or 3 devices forwarding frames or packets should not be affected by the implementation of DNSSEC regardless of the type of protocol (TCP/UDP) or the query size (large or small). Layer 4 de