[dns-wg] Secondary service on ns.ripe.net for reverse delegations.
Edward Lewis Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz
Tue Jun 5 17:24:18 CEST 2007
At 3:13 PM +0200 6/4/07, Brett Carr wrote: >As there was very little response to Jim's posting I am replying (hoping to Okay, so if it's discussion you want... >On May 14, 2007, at 12:25 PM, Jim Reid wrote: >> * Is there value in having the NCC provide DNS service for big/important >> reverse zones? This isn't the question I would ask. It's not a matter if yet-another-well-managed slave is a good thing or not (obviously yes), it's a matter if the expense incurred to do this worth it. There's the basic cost benefit question, to which I suspect the answer would be "it's worth it." Then there's the opportunity question of whether the budget of the RIPE NCC is better spent elsewhere. And then there's the question if whether not doing so permits miscreant children for doing bad things. >> * If the answer to the above question is yes, under what conditions? ie What >> do we mean by big or important? I think the answer is yes, so long as Brett Carr hasn't gone insane and moved all of the servers to an X.25 network. Big or important - big is anything over 12 units of any measure and important is "if I use it." >> * If the answer is still yes, should this service be compulsory or >> optional? And under what conditions would optional use become compulsory >> and vice versa? This comes down to the question of how much responsibility does a registry/parent zone assume for its child delegations. In the domain name world, there is little need for the parent to enforce proper operation by the child (in terms of preventing protocol failures, I'm not including "fast flux" issues). However in the reverse map world, I'm not as sure of an answer. What is the experience of having an ISP that fails to maintain their reverse map delegation by customers that want to have their reverse map data available? I.e., once I wanted to have the reverse map for my new v6 (PA) subnet running, but our provider didn't have reverse map service for v6. >> * If the answer to the orginal question is no, what, if anything, does the >> NCC do about things like lame delegations for reverse zones and the >> operational problems these cause the NCC? There are two questions here. Do lame delegations cause problems and what should the RIPE NCC do about it? 5 years ago, there was software that behaved badly in a big way when there was a lame delegation. I don't know if that software is still a problem. Given the experience of lame delegation work I have done, it seems like the problem has mostly "just gone away." Do lame delegations cause operational problems for the RIPE NCC? The only thing I would suspect is an elevated query rate for stuff that belongs to lame servers. I suspect that that could be measured if we wanted. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale.
[ dns-wg Archives ]