[ppml] Proposed Policy: Lame Delegations in IN-ADDR.ARPA

[Edward Lewis]

At 13:10 -0500 2/17/05, Member Services wrote:

>Policy Proposal Name: Lame Delegations in IN-ADDR.ARPA
>
...

>Rationale:  The policy as stated could not be implemented without placing
>an undue burden on ARIN staff resources.  The procedures mandated in the

I think this responds well to the workload problem of the current 
lame delegation policy statement.

Now, to get tangential on this, here is question for the community.

Let's say there is a /20 network with name servers registered.  To 
the DNS this means there will be 16 (2 to the 24-20th) /24 zones.  In 
WhoIs, you would see one record for the network and one listing of 
the name servers.  In DNS you would see 16 NS RRsets.

What if the administrator has put up 15 of the 16 zones?

If, by rule, you de-list the name servers because of the one lame 
zone, the result hurts the 15 working zones.  One DNS implementation 
will drop all queries to the 16th zone, most will reply with a 
referral to "somewhere else."

(The best of all worlds would be to explain to the admin to configure 
and server the 16th zone, even with no data in it.)

This isn't a make or break problem.  The question is - does the 
community care to dive to this level of detail?
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Achieving total enlightenment has taught me that ignorance in bliss.