[db-wg] Re: [dns-wg] Proposal to change the syntax of "nserver:" attribute
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Proposal to change the syntax of "nserver:" attribute
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Re: [dns-wg] Proposal to change the syntax of "nserver:" attribute
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Peter Koch
pk at DENIC.DE
Mon May 15 15:10:15 CEST 2006
Hello Katie, > and reject > > domain: test.net > nserver: ns2.example.com 168.0.0.1 > > Hope it is clearer now; any suggestions about better and clearer phrasing > are appreciated. That's fine, the owner name of the glue A/AAAA RR may be at any level greater or equal than the zone to be delegated. But ... > The only new glue-related checks will be: > 1) Making sure all glue IPs listed in domain object are also listed > in the zone at every nameserver ... this test might fail in otherwise correct configurations. Unless explicitly excluded, a glue RR may belong to a zone _below_ the delegated one, so the servers of the delegated zone cannot be expected to authoritatively know the A/AAAA RR(s). I'd not believe this is common in e164.arpa, but than I'd also have thought there's no need for glue in that domain in the first place ... > 2) Glue name must be within the same domain (already listed above) Yep. And the check should include the presence of mandatory glue RRs. With a miced v4/v6 environment, would a name server with v6 only glue be accepted (v4 only obviously is)? How many glue RRs would be allowed per name server entry? -Peter
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Proposal to change the syntax of "nserver:" attribute
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Re: [dns-wg] Proposal to change the syntax of "nserver:" attribute
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ dns-wg Archives ]