March 2009 - dns-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Turning off lameness checks for reverse
by Shane Kerr 29 Apr '09

29 Apr '09

All, Is there any support for disabling lameness checks for reverse DNS? 1. It seems that they cause some annoyance to administrators. 2. As far as I know there has never been a study showing improvement for DNS users based on removing lameness in reverse DNS (or in any DNS). These two things suggest to me that the pro-active lameness checks should be disabled, at least until it is shown that lameness actually causes problems. Cheers, -- Shane

6 6

Q: "lameness checks" - error messages for servers at the NCC?
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 30 Mar '09

30 Mar '09

Dear DNS-Folks, I'd like to understand whether receiving error messages that report problems related to the name server(s) run by/at the NCC is a rare case or rather "widespread". I am working on one such case now for a university served by our team. Please report back to me privately as I don't intend to see the list spammed with "mee too" messages :-) and I'll summarize to the list if useful. Thanks, Wilfried.

1 0

DNS lameness question
by Matus UHLAR - fantomas 23 Mar '09

23 Mar '09

Hello, We have received informations about DNS lameness in our reverse delegations. We have delegated (most of) our reverse zones to: ns.nextra.sk ns1.nextra.sk dns.nextra.sk dns.gtsi.sk Some time ago, since there were some problems, I removed the dns.nextra.sk record from the nextra.sk zone, and assigned its IP address to ns.nextra.sk. No direct zones were delegated to it (hopefully, not by us), this caused no problem there (at least not caused by us). However the delegations in RIPE do still point to dns.nextra.sk. There are plenty of them, and I plan to change the NS scheme to make it more reliable, easier to implement and harder to abuse (e.g. naming only some of NS records), so the structure will change even more. For this reason I decided not to change all delegations (to spare our RIPE contacts from modifying it all twice) until I will do that. However on Feb 24, RIPE sent lameness notifications to us and our RIPE contact got angry at me for not notifying them about this change, and requesting that I add the record back. I prefer not to do that, since my plans are very different and customers tend to put anything to NS records without asking. Adding CNAME record would not solve this problem since NS must not point to CNAME (scripts at RIPE check for that, right?). So I'm asking you for an advice - is it possible to mass-remove the "dns.nextra.sk" from delegations? - would it cause big problem if I kept it as it is, even if dns.nextra.sk does not exist? (I hope no delegations will be removed because of this) - is there anything other to advise me? Thank you -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar(a)fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. "To Boot or not to Boot, that's the question." [WD1270 Caviar]

2 4

New key-signing keys (KSKs) for RIPE NCC forward and reverse zones
by Anand Buddhdev 17 Mar '09

17 Mar '09

Dear Colleagues, On 12 March 2009, the RIPE NCC generated new key-signing keys (KSKs) for all the DNSSEC-signed zones that it operates. We have published updated trust anchor files for inclusion in validating resolvers. A list of all the zones that we sign and the trust anchor files are available at: https://www.ripe.net/projects/disi/keys/index.html The old KSKs are deprecated and will be removed from the zones on 15 June 2009. Please update your trust anchors before this date. Regards, Anand Buddhdev DNS Services Manager RIPE NCC

5 8

DNS lameness notifications
by Gilles Massen 10 Mar '09

10 Mar '09

Dear colleagues, I was wondering if there is a detailed description of what and how is tested in order to check the lameness of a server (i.e. how are the names resolved, timeouts and retransmits of the queries, checks made,....)? Any pointer would be welcome. The background is that I got notifications ("Unable to resolve nameserver ") which are most probably wrong, unless the resolving algorithm is very delicate... Best regards, Gilles -- Fondation RESTENA - DNS-LU 6, rue Coudenhove-Kalergi L-1359 Luxembourg tel: (+352) 424409 fax: (+352) 422473

12 13

RE: [dns-wg] DNS lameness notifications
by Stream Service 10 Mar '09

10 Mar '09

Hello, We did also receive that message for nameservers in: - 3 networks - 4 class c-subnets - 4 nameservers (on different servers) All nameservers where not resolved if I read it correctly. I did check it a few seconds ago for another time on all nameservers with dig: rDNS records are correctly returned. With kind regards, Mark Scholten Stream Service -----Original Message----- From: dns-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:dns-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gilles Massen Sent: maandag 9 maart 2009 13:45 To: dns-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: [dns-wg] DNS lameness notifications Dear colleagues, I was wondering if there is a detailed description of what and how is tested in order to check the lameness of a server (i.e. how are the names resolved, timeouts and retransmits of the queries, checks made,....)? Any pointer would be welcome. The background is that I got notifications ("Unable to resolve nameserver ") which are most probably wrong, unless the resolving algorithm is very delicate... Best regards, Gilles -- Fondation RESTENA - DNS-LU 6, rue Coudenhove-Kalergi L-1359 Luxembourg tel: (+352) 424409 fax: (+352) 422473

1 0