[dns-wg] DNS lameness question

Hello,

We have received informations about DNS lameness in our reverse delegations.

We have delegated (most of) our reverse zones to:

ns.nextra.sk
ns1.nextra.sk
dns.nextra.sk
dns.gtsi.sk

Some time ago, since there were some problems, I removed the dns.nextra.sk
record from the nextra.sk zone, and assigned its IP address to ns.nextra.sk.
No direct zones were delegated to it (hopefully, not by us), this caused no
problem there (at least not caused by us).

However the delegations in RIPE do still point to dns.nextra.sk. There are
plenty of them, and I plan to change the NS scheme to make it more reliable,
easier to implement and harder to abuse (e.g. naming only some of NS
records), so the structure will change even more. For this reason I decided
not to change all delegations (to spare our RIPE contacts from modifying it
all twice) until I will do that.

However on Feb 24, RIPE sent lameness notifications to us and our RIPE
contact got angry at me for not notifying them about this change, and
requesting that I add the record back. I prefer not to do that, since my
plans are very different and customers tend to put anything to NS records
without asking. Adding CNAME record would not solve this problem since NS
must not point to CNAME (scripts at RIPE check for that, right?).

So I'm asking you for an advice
- is it possible to mass-remove the "dns.nextra.sk" from delegations?
- would it cause big problem if I kept it as it is, even if dns.nextra.sk
  does not exist? (I hope no delegations will be removed because of this)
- is there anything other to advise me?

Thank you
-- 
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar at fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
"To Boot or not to Boot, that's the question." [WD1270 Caviar]