paul at vix.com
Tue Aug 18 05:17:18 UTC 1998
> > . 2D IN NS PANIC.WEBTEAM.NET.
> > . 2D IN NS TORGO.WEBTEAM.NET.
> > PANIC.WEBTEAM.NET. 2D IN A 126.96.36.199
> > TORGO.WEBTEAM.NET. 2D IN A 188.8.131.52
> How did this happen anyway? InterNIC? Postel?
M.I.B.H., no doubt.
> Doesn't this error imply that a percentage of the
> Internet was unresolvable by the entire planet?
Luckily not. Those servers are running with recursion enabled. So they
sent back a lot of nonauthoritative answers, which were treated as server
failures but forwarded anyway. At least BIND would have done that. Had
the above servers been configured with recursion disabled, then the above
delegation (coming as it did as an authoritative answer from a bootstrap
source -- A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET) would have pretty much rocked the e-commerce
market. Thus do we see that the least secure part of DNS are the procedures
and people, not the protocols or implementation. That's not a slam on the
InterNIC, but it could be correctly taken as a hint that the new IANA has
some serious procedural work to do regarding change control and publication.
I'm not sure what non-BIND servers did, of course. (They aren't common yet.)
> Maybe we can get bilateral peering with BBN since we have a root server,
That's what worked for me :-). Except that I'm perfectly willing to say in
public that I get transit connectivity from BBN (and others) and it's great.
La Honda, CA "Many NANOG members have been around
<paul at vix.com> longer than most." --Jim Fleming
pacbell!vixie!paul (An H.323 GateKeeper for the IPv8 Network)
More information about the NANOG