QWEST.NET can you fix your nameservers

Eric Tykwinski eric-list at truenet.com
Thu Sep 15 23:39:45 UTC 2016

Ironically,  I always wondered why I was told not to publish SPF records, since it did make more sense to have both, and slowly remove the TXT records later.  Thanks for the heads up…

What do you think really is best practice now?


Eric Tykwinski
TrueNet, Inc.
P: 610-429-8300

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 7:30 PM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:
> So your helpdesks don't get problem reports when people can't look
> up domain names?  Recursive DNS vendors don't get bug reports when
> domain names can't be looked up.  We don't get fixes developed
> because there are too many broken servers out there.
> Because some servers don't answer EDNS requests this leads to false
> positives on servers not support EDNS when they do.  This in turn
> leads to DNSSEC validation failures as you don't get DNSSEC answers
> without EDNS.
> IPv6 deployment was put back years because AAAA DNS lookups got
> wrong answers.
> DANE deployment is slow because DNS servers give bad answers to
> _<port>._tcp.<server-name>/TLSA.
> Then there is SPF.  A fare portion of the reason why the SPF record
> failed, despite it being architectually cleaner than using TXT
> records, is that some nameservers gave bad responses to SPF queries.
> I could go find more examples of the cost of non DNS protocol
> compliance.
> -- 
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org <mailto:marka at isc.org>

More information about the NANOG mailing list