[ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-3: Lame Delegations

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Fri Apr 15 15:50:53 EDT 2005


In a message written on Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:17:01PM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote:
> Well, this is a topic I would like to see discussed in a 
> technically-bent arena.  One solution, which causes the least amount 
> of liability concerns (see above) is to retain all delegations 
> wherein one delegation is healthy.  This could be categorized as 
> "getting the low hanging fruit."  Not complete, but better than 
> nothing at all.

Consider the following case:

Member is delegated a /16 by ARIN.

Member correctly configures a /16 on their nameserver.

Member delegates a /24 to a customer.

The customer is lame for that /24.

In this case all the "bad resolvers" out there will follow good
delegations to the members nameservers, and then repeatedly beat
on them over the lame delegation.  So we've moved the problem from
the root nameservers (a public resource arin is tangentally interested
in) to the members nameservers, which if the member wants to not
fix their customers issue and simply build them big enough to take
it that's their issue.

So I don't know that there's any value in ARIN looking at things other
than direct references from ARIN's nameservers.

[Note: If you don't choose tidy /16 and /24 boundaries arin my directly
point to a subcustomer, in which case ARIN may still be interested.  I
chose the easy case for discussion purposes.]

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20050415/13b5dbe8/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list