Re: [dns-wg] lameness and unreachability, edlewis@localhost

[Brad Knowles <]

At 9:39 AM -0400 2003/05/21, Edward Lewis wrote:

>  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?
	This is a good question.  IMO, as far as RIPE is concerned (in 
and of itself), lame delegations (or "unreachable zones") have only 
to do with delegations within the appropriate reverse DNS space.  The 
forward delegations are handled separately via the ccTLDs, over which 
RIPE has no control.

	This isn't to say that the RIPE DNS WG couldn't help define some 
terms for this issue and suggest some ideas that appear to be 
workable (based on experience from ARIN, APNIC, etc...), but it 
doesn't seem to directly impact on RIPE itself.

>     ...a means to measure the health of the DNS delegations?
	I think we can be much more objective on this issue.  We can 
categorize the various ways in which servers may have operational 
problems and be "unreachable", and using that data we can come to 
some determination about whether or not the entire zone is 
unreachable.

	I think that this could be a good discussion to have, or at least 
to monitor the appropriate part of the APNIC discussion.

>     ...how ccTLDs go about testing delegations?
	I think we could talk about how the RIPE NCC does this for the 
appropriate reverse DNS space, and give some suggestions on how this 
could be done for the forward delegation space.  However, that would 
need input and coordination from the RIPE NCC, and we'd need a lot of 
input & feedback from the various ccTLD operators.

>     ...what responsibility a registry has in publicizing their test criteria?
	See above.

>  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."
	I think that is a good term.  It covers more than just the 
specific issue of whether or not a server is "lame" for a particular 
zone, etc....  I believe that we should expand this to include 
"unreachable servers", and give some further thought as to the 
various different failure modes and what they might mean.

--
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@localhost

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.

GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+
!w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++)
tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)