In message <4dfa62ca.7060...@gmail.com>, David Sparro writes:
> On 6/15/2011 7:41 PM, M. Meadows wrote:
> >
> > The DNS admins at thehartford.com seem to feel that this nameserver
> > mismatch is working as expected.
> >
> > So I'm just wondering if anyone still feels that the nameserver mismatch
> > seen with the digs in earlier parts of this email thread may present a
> > problem to servers requesting name resolution for address records in the
> > "thehartford.com" domain.
> >
>
> It will be fine as long as nothing goes wrong. It may not be as robust
> as they think it is because it means that depending on the state of my
> cache, I may need to be able to get an answer from one of NS1 or NS2
> *AND* one of hfdns3, hfdns4, simns3, or simns4 simultaneously.
> This creates an additional potential point of failure.
The last sentence of this paragraph from RFC 1034 was not written
for no reason. Registries and registrants need to obey it. It is
not optional and failure to do so causes operational problems.
As the last installation step, the delegation NS RRs and
glue RRs necessary to make the delegation effective should
be added to the parent zone. The administrators of both
zones should insure that the NS and glue RRs which mark
both sides of the cut are consistent and remain so.
COM is being negligent by not ensuring that these checks get performed
and mis-matches get corrected. The current COM operators took over
operations well after RFC 1034 was written. They have no excuse for
not doing this regardless of the costs. We shouldn't have to pay for
their lack of due diligence.
Mark
> --
> Dave
> _______________________________________________
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users@lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
_______________________________________________
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
