Hello,
I searched if this issue has been around previously, but neither
google or Nanog list search produced anything recent and
relevant. There has been some discussion on whois host entries etc,
however.
The real issue, why this seems impossible with many registrars, is
explained in the end of
> And now the problem with some registrars (or is it the same with all
> of them):
>
> godaddy.com:
>
> Does only allow to use "registered hosts" as name servers in .com and
> .net domains. If the name server host is in com or net domain and it
> is not in the same domain, it needs to be a regis
On 2 Mar 2004, at 19:06, Antti Louko wrote:
And now the problem with some registrars (or is it the same with all
of them):
godaddy.com:
Does only allow to use "registered hosts" as name servers in .com and
.net domains.
This is a requirement of Verisign registry, and should be true for all
net
>> Does only allow to use "registered hosts" as name servers
>> in .com and .net domains.
> This is a requirement of Verisign registry, and should be
> true for all net/com registrars.
s;net/com;;
presuming you mean that there should be registered host rr
for all known servers. otherwise, i sus
On 2 Mar 2004, at 21:02, Randy Bush wrote:
Does only allow to use "registered hosts" as name servers
in .com and .net domains.
This is a requirement of Verisign registry, and should be
true for all net/com registrars.
s;net/com;;
presuming you mean that there should be registered host rr
for al
> i would not be unhappy if the
> registrar or registry would test this occasionally.
For what values of occasionally?
And for what operational benefit? Removal of the record(s) certainly
wouldn't be appropriate so what would you like to see happen?
A CIDR Report style email to nanog-l? *y
> presuming you mean that there should be registered host rr
> for all known servers. otherwise, i suspect the servfails
> will get even worse.
>
> sadly, forcing an A RR does not ensure that the server is
> in fact serving the zone. i would not be unhappy if the
> registrar or registry would t
>> i would not be unhappy if the registrar or registry would test
>> this occasionally.
> For what values of occasionally?
i can thing of a lot of values more interesting than zero
> And for what operational benefit? Removal of the record(s)
> certainly wouldn't be appropriate
why not? what i
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, David A. Ulevitch wrote:
> A CIDR Report style email to nanog-l? *yawn*
You mean http://www.cymru.com/DNS/lame.html ? Team Cymru have been doing
that for ages. Doesn't actually force the issue anywhere, but it does get
checked and published, using contributed resolver logs
>
>> And for what operational benefit? Removal of the record(s)
>> certainly wouldn't be appropriate
>
> why not? what is the use of a zone that is not being served?
A query not being answered to you or the verifier is not the same thing
as a zone not being served. (I would also assume tha
10 matches
Mail list logo