Interesting new dns failures
ge at linuxbox.org
Mon May 21 21:41:56 UTC 2007
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2007, Gadi Evron wrote:
> > As to NS fastflux, I think you are right. But it may also be an issue of
> > policy. Is there a reason today to allow any domain to change NSs
> > constantly?
> well, so it's not explicitly denied in the current operations policy
> things, so people may depend on it for some reason(s). They might have
> turned on a service that depends on it, something not related to email or
> web or other things. DNS is basic internet plumbing, messing with it
> without LOTS of study is bound to bring out wierd uses. Especially where
> there is no prohibition on this today, making an arbitrary limit tomorrow
> is going to cause problems.
Quite. And yet watching for such changes at the registrar level may be
interesting. A couple of years ago some DNS experts disagreed. I'll try
and raise this idea again and if it holds water, see if some of the
registrars are game (which in itself hints to another problem).
As an old boss of mine used to say: "In Hebrew we say, 'one cow, one
cow'". (One cow at a time ... )
More information about the NANOG