[dns-wg] Progress with DNS Quality, Also: Lameness

We have been developing such a tool.  Currently it has about
40 million zones loaded in a SQL database.  

We have been trying to get ccTLD operators to let us slave or
FTP their zones as well.  Some let us, many others dont.

Access to the tool is based on setting up an account.  If you
are interested send email to 

   data  AT  chagres DOT net

with your UID, IP addr, Company Affiliation, Statement that
you will NOT use for SPAM or HACKING.  We will send your 
password and URL back to you.


Today the tool lets you type in      ripe.net

it returns the list of NS's that end with ripe.net
and a count of the zones in the DB for each NS.

You can then get a list of zones, or do a LAME check.

You can also create a list thats the DIFF between two
different NS"s.

Say you have NS1.EXAMPLE.COM   and NS2.EXAMPLE.COM

NS1 has 300 zones and NS2 has 281 zones.

You know that they should be the same.  You can diff
the NS1 and NS2 lists to see whats missing.

cheers

john brown
chagres technologies, inc

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dns-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:dns-wg-admin at ripe.net] On 
> Behalf Of Jim Reid
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 3:05 AM
> To: RIPE DNS Working Group
> Subject: Re: [dns-wg] Progress with DNS Quality, Also: Lameness 
> 
> 
> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Karrenberg 
> <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> writes:
> 
>     Daniel> How about your friendly RIR providing an extra service of
>     Daniel> checking your reverse DNS tree for a small additional fee
>     Daniel> that covers the people resources needed to get the reports
>     Daniel> to you and follow up on them.
> 
> I agree that someone could/should offer a service selling 
> police reports. And related stuff such as audits and logs: 
> "Yes, your name servers were working just fine between 14:40 
> and 16:00 on June 1st 2002". However I am very uncomfortable 
> with an RIR providing this kind of service, even though 
> they're more likely to be respected as protocol police.
> 
> There are a number of reasons for this. First of all I'm not 
> sure if services like this fall within the remit of what an 
> RIR is supposed to do. Secondly an RIR is a monopoly and 
> should be *very* careful about extending into new service 
> areas. The likes of the EU anti-competition folks could get 
> very excited about that. Thirdly, this the kind of service 
> that could be offered by others: ISPs, registrars, DNS 
> consulting companies and so on. Many of them will already be 
> paying fees to the RIR. An RIR shouldn't be competing with 
> its customers -- why bite the hand that feeds it? -- or 
> distorting the market. Fourthly, if an RIR diversifies into 
> offering these peripheral services, there is a danger that it 
> will lose sight of its core registry function.
> 
> I do like the idea of RIRs having top-up charging for 
> additional services. This is a good way to make those 
> services self-financing and be seen to not be a drain on the 
> RIR's core funding. And if that keeps the annual fees down, 
> even better. However this is a discussion that should be 
> going on somewhere else: the new NCC services WG perhaps?
> 
> Finding out who'd be willing to pay for lameness checks would 
> be worthwhile. However I suspect it won't tell us anything we 
> don't already know. Clueful people might pay. But in general 
> they don't have lame servers. The clueless won't pay because 
> they don't know or care about lameness. They'll be the ones 
> that have the lame delegations. The challenge will always be 
> how to reach out to these people.
> 
> There's an education problem here. I think the WG could come 
> up with a definition of lameness and a business justification 
> why it's a bad thing. It would be great if registrars & 
> registries could pick this up, point their customers at 
> checking tools and persuade them to regularly use those 
> tools. This is do-able IMO.
>