- dns-wg - mailman.ripe.net

recommending use of IN-ADDR.ARPA
by Daniel Karrenberg 11 Mar '94

11 Mar '94

Folks, what does the DNS WG think about recommending usage of in-addr.arpa for router networks in order to facilitate problem diagnostics? Daniel Date: Wed, 9 Mar 94 22:00:49 +0100 From: Philippe-Andre Prindeville <philipp(a)res.enst.fr> Message-Id: <9403092100.AA20616(a)davis.res.enst.fr> To: Marten.Terpstra(a)ripe.net Subject: Missing IN-ADDR.ARPA records Resent-To: hostmaster(a)ripe.net Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 10:14:18 +0100 Resent-From: Marten Terpstra <Marten.Terpstra(a)ripe.net> Hi Marten, I was wondering if you could tell me something: for almost a year, I've been asking Renater regularly to install a name server for their IN-ADDR.ARPA zones for their routers. They've been (in the past) telling me that it was planned but they haven't gotten around to doing it. Well, the shoe has dropped. They've abandoned all pretenses of ever intending to install IN-ADDR.ARPA zones to the name servers. It simply will never happen. For users and network operators alike, this is a serious problem if we can't at least pin-point the locality of network outages. What political recourse does RIPE (or EBONE) have to bring Renater into line? Is there an "authority" I can complain to? Thanks, -Philip

2 1

current BIND status
by Ruediger Volk 02 Mar '94

02 Mar '94

Dear colleagues, last week I helped trace back some DNS problems to (yet another) installation of a bad early test version of BIND 4.9.2 (installed on a major server). Unfortunately it seems that quite a lot of installations have picked up broken test versions that were never intended for public distribution or use; indeed archie indicates that that kind of bad software is carried by more archive servers than the public beta or the recent "final" version (931205). If you have published old versions of BIND 4.9.2 on your archive servers I would like to encourage you very much to purge these ASAP to prevent further spread of the broken software. Below I include a short note about the current state of the 4.9.2 release I wrote for a BIND source archive I maintain; I explictly checked this information with Paul Vixie. If interested you can grab the current distribution kit from DEC WRL (see below); you also can use one of the European copies e.g. ftp://deins.Informatik.Uni-Dortmund.DE/DNS/src/bind/4.9.2-940221.tar.Z (about 1.5 MByte). Cheers, Ruediger Ruediger Volk Universitaet Dortmund, Informatik IRB D-44221 Dortmund, Germany E-Mail: rv(a)Informatik.Uni-Dortmund.DE Phone: +49 231 755 4760 Fax: +49 231 755 2386 ================================================================================ BIND 4.9.2 versions (Ruediger Volk -940302-) =================== Version 4.9.2-940221 of BIND is the best version so far; it will be declared the FINAL version of release 4.9.2; all previous versions of 4.9.2 were still test versions. (see also note from Paul Vixie below) In particular all previous versions of 4.9.2 include more bugs - and some are really bad. However a few problems with 4.9.2-940221 are still known, and a patch kit is in preparation. If you want a good and current BIND *now*, you are advised to use 4.9.2-940221 but switch OFF the options NCACHE and VALIDATE (these are the areas of known or suspected bugs that can be dangerous). Please GET RID of earlier versions of 4.9.2. (all versions prior to 931205 were ONLY intended for limited, controlled use within the group of testers and developers; 4.9.2-931205 WITH 4.9.2-931205.patch01 applied was the public beta test version, and is now succeeded by 4.9.2-940221.) P.S.: I minor bug in the 4.9.2-940221 distribution kit is related to the included formatted documentation: beware, while the PostScript formatted version of the BIND Operations Guide doc/bog/file.psf is current for 4.9.2, doc/bog/file.psf is the ASCII formatted version from the previous release (4.9). ================================================================================ From: paul(a)vix.com (Paul A Vixie) Subject: Re: Bind - 4.9.2 Date: 28 Feb 94 20:07:52 GMT Organization: Vixie Enterprises > Can anyone tell me when the 4.9.2 version of Bind is expected to >be realesed? i'm going to declare the 4.9.2 on gatekeeper.dec.com:~ftp/pub/misc/vixie (4.9.2-940221.tar.{gz,Z}) to be FINAL. we're working on the first patch now; it corrects the last bundle of small problems that couldn't be frozen into 4.9.2 due to release synchronization schedules.

1 0

Re: Root nameservers...
by vixie＠vix.com 26 Jan '94

26 Jan '94

One of the reasons why putting root servers outside the US has been avoided is that the most common DNS implementation -- BIND -- has for a long time had bugs such that it wouldn't use "close" servers over "distant" ones. Since the U.S. was the center of most of the world's Internet connectivity (and still is) it was easier to just put the root servers where the traffic ``probably had to go anyway most of the time'' than to fix BIND. BIND is fixed. I think some of the math is still "wrong", since I didn't pick up all of the patches I got from Phil Almquist in this area and I know he spent a whole lot of time on it. But I did fix a lot of the sorting behaviour in 4.9 (and a few more things will be fixed in 4.9.2). If all of the root servers that run BIND use 4.9 or later, and most of the large institutional forwarding servers that run BIND use 4.9 or later, it will no longer matter where the root servers are. Note: I'm just another BIND hacker, I don't make decisions about root servers. But if those who *do* make these decisions want to spread the root service load a bit more, BIND is finally able to do the right thing about it. -- Paul Vixie Redwood City, CA Also: <comp-sources-unix(a)uunet.uu.net>, <vixie(a)bsdi.com>, decwrl!vixie!paul <ftpmail-admin(a)pa.dec.com>, <vixie(a)sony.com>, <paul(a)vix.com> <{bind-workers,objectivism}-request(a)vix.com> --- End of News article __ Erik-Jan.

1 0

FRWD: Re: Root nameservers...
by Erik-Jan Bos 26 Jan '94

26 Jan '94

DNS-WG, I just found the message below in News. Input for the next DNS-WG meeting? --- Start of News article

1 0

DNS WG at the 17th RIPE meeting
by Francis Dupont 19 Jan '94

19 Jan '94

Here is the final draft agenda for the DNS WG meeting : First we have the still open points: - a second root name server in Europe (nothing new ?) - IPng support (new proposal and code for TUBA/CATNIP/NSAP, perhaps something for SIPP ?) - last BIND software (version 4.9.2 is in final beta-test) - DNS for Windows NT (I know only one thing: WNT has a resolver :-) New points: - mandatory field zone-c RIPE DB problem (cf Marten's E-mail) We need 1.0 hour. Thanks Francis.Dupont(a)inria.fr

1 0

DNS WG at the 17th RIPE meeting
by Francis Dupont 11 Jan '94

11 Jan '94

I am collecting the ideas for the DNS WG agenda... First we have the still open points: - a second root name server in Europe (nothing new ?) - IPng support (new proposal and code for TUBA/CATNIP/NSAP, perhaps something for SIPP ?) - last BIND software (version 4.9.2 is in final beta-test) - DNS for Windows NT (I know only one thing: WNT has a resolver :-) New points: - mandatory field zone-c RIPE DB problem (cf Marten's E-mail) You can propose elements for the agenda (before next week please). Thanks Francis.Dupont(a)inria.fr

1 0

Re: Fundamental problem with mandatory field zone-c
by Marten Terpstra 26 Nov '93

26 Nov '93

Ruediger Volk <rv(a)deins.informatik.uni-dortmund.de> writes * Andreas writes: * > There is no zone for aic.de, thus there is no zone contact. * and the data base entry for AIC.DE is gone also... * * > Opinions ? * possible ways out: * * (a) drop domain entries completely * (b) don't register MX-only domains (in RIPE db) * (c) make zone-c optional (with the convention that this is only allowed * for MX-only domains) * (d) insert the zone contact for MX-only - defaulting to zone-c of * the zone containing the MX * * I vote for (c) In the past (Blasco has mentioned this before) we said to include the zone-c of the parent zone, since he/she maintains the MX records. This is Ruediger's option (d). Looking at the number of syntax errors in the database currently for domains, and the population, I would even vote for (a) or (b), but this has been rejected by the dns-wg on several occassions (on very good grounds). The question was and is whether the domain objects give added information compared to what is in the DNS. With 4.9 and the TXT and RP RRs I am not quite sure if these grounds still hold ... Other opinions ? -Marten PS I have CCed the dns-wg as well ...

4 3

Query: What to do if you use an A record but can't handle mail
by arthur＠midir.ucd.ie 11 Nov '93

11 Nov '93

Gentlemen - Apologies for intruding in this manner, but I have a query for which the usual sources don't seem to have an answer. What is the collective wisdom on providing A records (for Internet access) but stopping mail access? There are a large number of machines here in University College Dublin which require Internet access but can't run a SMTP server (they're PC and the like). I want to ensure that anyone trying to send mail to them gets a prompt refusal -- what I plan to do to is provide a DNS entry like this: toaster.ucd.ie. IN A 137.43.2.29 toaster.ucd.ie. IN MX undeliverable.ucd.ie. The host undeliverable.ucd.ie doesn't exist, which should as far as I know return a prompt "can't deliver mail" message. So, is this how other people do it? Is this the right way? Is there a better way? Any and all suggestions will be gratefully received. - Arthur Green University College Dublin Computing Services Tel: +353 1 706 2456 Fax: +353 1 283 7077 E-mail: arthur(a)midir.ucd.ie

2 1

Re: MX in IN-ADDR.ARPA domains?
by hh＠tip.net 13 Oct '93

13 Oct '93

At 04:55 PM 10/13/93 +0100, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > > hh(a)tip.net (Hakan Hansson) writes: > > > > Well, I have only experience from sendmail, and there it is possible to > > configure multiple mail-domains for incoming mail. Do you mean that this > > does no apply for all mail softwares? If so, then I agree that this was a > > bad idea.... > >Even with sendmail this depends on what your sendmail.cf >looks like and how well you can debug sendmail. > >Daniel > > I don't think it is hard to do that, just do like this: Cmubn.net Cmse.ubn.net Cmtip.net Cmtipnet.se Cmsti.se Cm44.193.in-addr.arpa /Hakan

2 1

Re: MX in IN-ADDR.ARPA domains?
by hh＠tip.net 13 Oct '93

13 Oct '93

At 04:41 PM 10/13/93 +0100, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > > hh(a)tip.net (Hakan Hansson) writes: > > Hi there, > > > > Then I come to think of: > > Why couldn't he send a request to hostmaster(a)44.193.in-addr.arpa? > >The main problem would be that not even all sevice providers >will get their mail systems to recognise hostmaster(a)44.193.in-addr.arpa >as local mail! > >Daniel > Well, I have only experience from sendmail, and there it is possible to configure multiple mail-domains for incoming mail. Do you mean that this does no apply for all mail softwares? If so, then I agree that this was a bad idea.... /Hakan

2 1