Action List

You’re viewing an archived page. It is no longer being updated.
Action: Action On: Description: Status:
48.1 Peter Koch

Collect experiences with lameness problems due to vanished customers or AXFR sources

The discussion during RIPE 57 revealed that the survey amongst CENTR members (mostly European ccTLDs) showed they had not seen a noticable number of requests to alter or remove DNS delegations by third parties (i.e., other than the registrar or registrant). In general, their policies would not allow them to follow such requests and very few would be able to act upon lame delegations, independent of who raised the issue.

For the reverse mapping, similar problems had not been reported.

During previous discussion after the action item was initially assigned, the general problem was acknowledged but with little evidence of being re-occuring or pressing. No operators of DNS name servers had come forward to suggest any operational urgency.

48.2 Mans Nilsson Write proposal to support integrity checked/source authenticated DNS zone transfers to in case it is secondary for an IN-ADDR.ARPA zone. Take into account key generation an distribution as well as integration with the current automated system. Check
48.3 Olaf Kolkman Send to the mailing list (a pointer to) the current list of checks applied to IN-ADDR.ARPA zones before reverse delegation is activated or updated. Initiate review of those checks and propose, if necessary, updates and/or additional tests.
48.4 David Malone Write up a draft RIPE Document summarising the observations made regarding AAAA resolution problems. Circulate to the list, initiate discussion what to do, i.e. who to approach with the list of errors/problems seen.
49.1 Peter Koch Propose requirements for the DNS samples and statistics to be collected by a potential successor hostcount. Check
49.2 Jim Reid

Document on DNS Server Migration

The working group has taken several attempts to finish the document, including defining the target audience, scope and level of detail.

While discussions in both Berlin and Dubai had demonstrated some level of interest, the available momentum could not drive the draft towards a WG consensus. The conclusion in Dubai (RIPE 57) was to drop this project with thanks to all contributors.

49.3 Jaap Akkerhuis Do some research on the problems that the BIND delegation-only hack causes and document these.
50.1 RIPE NCC / Andrei Robachevsky Produce statistics on anycast placement for the K-root name server.
50.2 Jim Reid Coordinate team to send letter to ICANN/IANA requesting clarification of the name server naming issue (multiple names per address) in the root zone.
51.1 RIPE NCC / Lorenzo Colitti Publish K-Root anycast measurement results through appropriate channels with a RIPE document as a fallback.
51.2 RIPE NCC / Andrei Robachevsky Agree with RIRs on a date for decommissioning of IP6.INT reverse mapping services. Outline and communicate procedure to be followed based on the presentation made during the WG session.
51.3 Lars-Johan Liman Draft a proposal on the future of the RIPE NCC Secondary DNS Service. To be dealt with on cooperation with the NCC Services WG.
51.4 Peter Koch Draft text and initiate discussion on the mailing list towards an update of RIPE 203 along the lines of the presentation brought to the WG. Ongoing
51.5 Carsten Schiefner Provide text for a proposal for the RIPE NCC to implement ENUM DNS Predelegation Checks. Also explore the field of regular post delegation sanity checks in the tree.
52.1 RIPE NCC Investigate causes for extra DNSSEC network traffic(in excess of the predicted growth) and extra CPU cycles. Check
52.2 RIPE NCC Report number of signed zones and signed delegations in the reverse tree.
52.3 RIPE NCC Post questions and proposal to wg mailing list on how to deal with lame delegations when either the NCC is responsible for maintaining the parent or for running a (secondary) server for the child that is or is about to become delegated lame due to an unavailable *xfr source. Check
52.4 RIPE NCC Automate and streamline the process for ENUM delegations, including checks similar to those applied to the reverse tree.
52.5 Carsten Schiefner Write a proposal for performing regular lameness checks in E164.ARPA and actions to follow. Check
57.1 RIPE NCC (Anand) Consider the pros and cons of submitting the Trust Anchors of zones signed by the RIPE NCC into ISC DLV. Check
57.2 Peter Koch

Document the WG's advice that the old forward DNS zone domain objects in the RIPE Database be deleted, and liaise with the Database WG.

This was done during the Database WG meeting in Dubai (RIPE 57). The Database WG agreed to take over, so this will continue as Database WG Action Item 571.1

RIPE Forum

The RIPE Forum is an additional way to participate in RIPE community mailing list discussions using a web-based interface rather than an email client.

Check out the forum