[ppml] ARIN commments regarding Lame Delegation Policy

Randy Bush randy at psg.com
Fri Sep 14 14:03:05 EDT 2007

> Using the example posted on ppml, each name server would 
> be tested for all 32 reverse zones.  A name server would be deemed lame 
> only when all zones fail. If one or more of the reverse zones in the /19 
> is configured properly for a given name server, the name server 
> delegation for that /19 would be declared 'good'.

is arin eng/ops happy/comfortable with this?  i.e. does arin ops/eng
feel that re-classifying a delegation as erroneous when any sub-zone
delegation is lame to be ill-advised?

> ARIN staff believes the current policy, as ratified, provides sufficient 
> direction for lame delegations to be cleaned up.

you folk live too near to dc :)  using "lame delegations" in this way is
deliciously ambiguous.

lame delegations or lame delegations as currently defined?  i.e. you
have the needed ammo to deal with the problem as defined today, but are
not commenting on what could/should be defined?


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list