External (not in the same domain) name server

2004-03-02 Thread Antti Louko
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

Re: External (not in the same domain) name server

2004-03-02 Thread Stephen J. Wilcox
> 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

Re: External (not in the same domain) name server

2004-03-02 Thread Joe Abley
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

Re: External (not in the same domain) name server

2004-03-02 Thread Randy Bush
>> 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

Re: External (not in the same domain) name server

2004-03-02 Thread Joe Abley
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

Re: External (not in the same domain) name server

2004-03-02 Thread David A. Ulevitch
> 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

Re: External (not in the same domain) name server

2004-03-02 Thread bill
> 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

Re: External (not in the same domain) name server

2004-03-02 Thread Randy Bush
>> 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

Re: External (not in the same domain) name server

2004-03-02 Thread Tim Wilde
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

Re: External (not in the same domain) name server

2004-03-02 Thread David A. Ulevitch
> >> 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