[ppml] Is this Lame or what?

Tue Sep 11 20:15:30 EDT 2007

Scott,

That is a good point, and I had the very same question before  
posting. So I emailed the ARIN hostmaster for a clarification.

Hostmaster confirmed what you state below:

"Only if all of zones for a given name server of a specific network  
registration are lame, is the delegation registration deemed lame"

That is valid, correct, and should stay as-is.

Here is the problem. There is an ISP with a /22 network registration  
(4 /24's). Everything is delegated to a set of DNS servers. Those DNS  
servers correctly answer SOA request for 3 out of 4 of the /24 in- 
addr.arpa's. However, that last /24 was left out, and the ISPs DNS  
server does not answer on the SOA request, even though the ISP uses  
that /24.

So the question is, what do we do? Under current ARIN policy it  
sounds like the above scenario does not deem the ISP's /22 reverse  
dns delegation lame. Its only lame if all 4 /24's were lame, but in  
this case only one is lame. So nothing is done.

Problem is, this is a problem! If any /24 in-addr.arpa is lame, even  
though other /24's in the ISP's network registration are not, the ISP  
should still be considered "partially" lame, and should still be  
contacted by ARIN to remedy the situation.

And the overriding rationale for all of this is that the one lame /24  
is causing issues (like timeouts) for other people on the internet.

Its like sending 4 kids to school. 3 have their books and homework,  
and 1 has nothing. The 1 kid with nothing will cause issues for the  
teacher and the rest of the class. Now is it as bad as sending all 4  
kids to school if all 4 had no books or homework... No. But its still  
bad, and the parents should be called in for a teachers meeting due  
to their irresponsibility!

-John

On Sep 11, 2007, at 7:48 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:

> After doing some research (which I highly recommend everyone do before
> posting), I'm not sure any policy changes are needed to deal with the
> two specific cases raised so far.
>
> ARIN's Lame Delegations page at
> http://www.arin.net/reference/lame_delegations.html states that "ARIN
> tests a reverse zone by requesting the SOA (Start of Authority) record
> from the name servers registered in WHOIS. ... Any other answer (or an
> inability to reach the nameserver due to a forward lookup failure)
> results in the delegation being deemed lame. If all of zones for a  
> given
> name server of a specific network registration are lame, the  
> delegation
> registration is deemed lame."
>
> The way I read that, the fact that the authoritative servers for
> 160.76.in-addr.arpa., 161.76.in-addr.arpa., and 64.114.208.in- 
> addr.arpa.
> through 95.114.208.in-addr.arpa. do not respond to queries qualifies
> them as lame.  Under ARIN's own policy, that further means that "After
> 30 consecutive days of lameness, ARIN notifies the points-of- 
> contact of
> record via e-mail." and then if they get no response and it's not  
> fixed,
> "After 90 consecutive days of lameness, ARIN strips the lame  
> delegations
> from the WHOIS registration record and notifies the points-of- 
> contact of
> record of the actions taken."
>
> Can anyone from ARIN comment as to whether they share my  
> interpretation
> that a non-responsive name server is deemed lame, and subject to  
> removal
> under the procedure outlined above?
>
> Thanks,
> Scott
>
> Azinger, Marla wrote:
>> I would like to see a proposal that is along the lines of  
>> clarifying in addition to Owens proposal to just take it away.   
>> Hopefully we havnt scared John off and he will give a wack at it.
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Marla
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On  
>> Behalf Of
>> William Herrin
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 3:32 PM
>> To: Owen DeLong
>> Cc: Public Policy Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal -- Eliminate Lame Server policy
>>
>>
>> On 9/11/07, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 1.      Policy Proposal Name: Deprecate Lame Server Policy
>>> 7.      Policy statement:
>>>                 Delete section 7 from the NRPM
>>>
>>
>> Owen,
>>
>> Are you sure this is the right way to move on this? If we're going to
>> call ISPs "Local Internet Registries," shouldn't we expect them to
>> behave as internet registries and do the things that internet
>> registries do, including reallocation and assignment of the RDNS
>> attached to every IP address?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bill Herrin
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the  
> ARIN Public Policy
> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN  
> Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

Thanks,
John Von Essen
(800) 248-1736 ext 100
john at quonix.net