|
|
 |
[dns-wg] lameness and unreachability
- Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 09:39:54 -0400
On the APNIC mailing list (sig-dns) a discussion has been begun to
try and define the problem needing to be solved (assuming there is
one). I'm not sure that the discussion should be mirrored here, but
I wanted to call attention to those interested.
List info -
List-Id: APNIC SIG on DNS issues <sig-dns.lists.apnic.net>
List-Archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-dns/>
Before spouting too much on my own here, what is the topic that needs
to be discussed(on this mailing list)?
...what RIPE defines (or should define) as a problem delegation?
...a means to measure the health of the DNS delegations?
...how ccTLDs go about testing delegations?
...what responsibility a registry has in publicizing their test criteria?
I know that some of the above are topics that are not what is
desired, but I'm just trying to throw out some suggestions. The
reason I am doing this is that there has been a recent spurt in DNS
health mailing lists and it would be good if we could consolidate
discussions so as not to cross-post, repost, etc. Also, the topics
above have either recently appeared or were mentioned at the recent
meeting.
BTW - I am not saying that RIPE has a lame delegation problem. Stats
I've seen are that "bad delegations" are much more rare in the RIPE
region than in the ARIN region. There are possibly clear reasons for
this - in the ARIN region, delegations are "cut" in the DNS without
any pre-testing of servers. Also, ARIN has a lot of delegations that
predate ARIN's establishment.
Also - I'm shying away from using "lame delegations" based on how it
is defined in the RFCs. The suggested name I threw onto the APNIC
list is "unreachable zones."
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer
Your office is *not* a reality-based sit-com TV show.
|
|
 |
 |