Re: [sig-dns]progressing the APNIC Lame DNS sweep proposal
- To: Edward Lewis <edlewis at arin dot net>
- Subject: Re: [sig-dns]progressing the APNIC Lame DNS sweep proposal
- From: Joe Abley <jabley at isc dot org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:24:25 -0400
- Cc: sig-dns at lists dot apnic dot net
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- 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
On Tuesday, Apr 29, 2003, at 09:25 Canada/Eastern, Edward Lewis wrote:
First question I use: is the effort to reduce lameness targetting to reduce the load on the infrastructure servers (root, TLDs, etc.) or to make the overall DNS function better?The goals in George's document are to reduce the load on the root nameservers, and on other nameservers near the root in the delegation path for in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa, and also to improve performance for resolvers looking things up under those domains.
He suggests that both these goals can be accommodated by removing the delegation in cases where delegated nameservers are unreachable, thereby returning a fast NXDOMAIN to a resolver rather than waiting for a slow timeout from an unreachable nameserver; negative response caching should reduce the query load on the roots.
This is based on a single "lameness" criterion of "delegated nameserver is unreachable".
Your phrase "make the overall DNS function better" sounds like George's goal, but it also has connotations of "make the overall DNS more accurate". If accuracy is our goal, then we might reasonably extend George's "lameness" criterion to include nameservers which return inappropriate information (e.g. they send NXDOMAIN in response to an SOA query for a zone they should report authoritatively for).
By 'a delegation' do you mean that which is represented by the NS RR set for a child zone registered at the parent? (As opposed to being an individual NS RR, an address off an NS RR, or even the authoritative set of servers at the child.)
Opinions from the list on these two questions would be very good to hear.
Remember, Joe, "vengeful." ;)
I am quaking with fear :-) Joe