Re: [sig-dns]progressing the APNIC Lame DNS sweep proposal
- To: sig-dns at lists dot apnic dot net
- Subject: Re: [sig-dns]progressing the APNIC Lame DNS sweep proposal
- From: Joe Abley <jabley at isc dot org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:51:07 -0400
- In-reply-to: <20030423103542.79258649.ggm at apnic dot net>
- List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-dns/>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: APNIC SIG on DNS issues <sig-dns.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-dns>,<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-dns>,<mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
A little while ago, George Michaelson sent a summary of his proposal to
clean up lame delegations in the bits of the in-addr.arpa domain that
are delegated to APNIC. George also mentioned some other efforts which
are trying to define similar policy, including work done by LACNIC,
ARIN, RIPE and JPNIC/WIDE.
As the new chair of the APNIC DNS SIG (hello!), I have been asked to find out what people think about a couple of key points relating to this policy.
Before we get into exactly what everybody else's proposal is doing, and what we might do to facilitate a consistent policy across RIRs, here are a couple of open questions for this list:
1. When exactly should a delegation be considered lame?
- when all/some of the delegated nameservers give no response to queries?
- when some/some of the delegated nameservers give non-authoritative or otherwise unreasonable responses to queries?
- some other criteria?
2. When should a lame delegation be considered "lame enough" for some action to be taken?
- how many measurements?
- exactly what query or queries?
- measured from how many places?
Opinions from the list on these two questions would be very good to hear.