- dns-wg - mailman.ripe.net

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

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

13 Oct '93

Hi there, Now we have delegation of the IN-ADDR.ARPA domains from the root servers, similar to the delegation of the 'ordinary' domains. Before this happened there were only one single registry that handled all the reverse NS delegations, former <hostmaster(a)nic.ddn.mil>. This was easy to understand. Yesterday I spent some time trying to explain for one of our customers how the registration currently works. Well, you know the story.... Then I come to think of: Why couldn't he send a request to hostmaster(a)44.193.in-addr.arpa? The information about the hostmaster of each domain is of course already viewable in the zone files, but wouldn't it be more user-fiendly to be able to address the hostmaster of the IN-ADDR domain directly? Maybe this way of using IN-ADDR.ARPA isn't approved in applicable RFC's (I haven't checked)? Regards, Hakan Hansson == Unisource Business Networks Sweden == Unidata IP Services * TIPnet NMC * Gothenburg == phone +46-31-7708072 * fax +46-31-114664 *** Aktiv medlem i '8:e bit:ens vdnner' ***

2 1

DNS form for JINR
by root＠jimex.jinr.dubna.su 05 Oct '93

05 Oct '93

1. Top-level domain: su 2. Complete Domain Name: jinr.dubna.su 3a. Organization name: Joint Institute for Nuclear Research 3b. Organization address: P.O.Box 79 10100 Moscow 4. Date operational: 1-10-1993 Administrative Contact 5a. NIC Handle (if known) : VS86 5b. Name (Last, First) : Vladislav Shirikov 5c. Organization: Joint Institute for Nuclear Research 5d. Mail Address: shirikov(a)jinr.dubna.su 5e. Phone Number: Dubna (221) 62387 5f. Net Mailbox : Technical and Zone Contact 6a. NIC Handle (if known): 6b. Name (Last, First) : Evgeny Mazepa 6c. Organization: Joint Institute for Nuclear Research 6d. Mail Address: mazepa(a)jinr.dubna.su 6e. Phone Number: Dubna (221) 65020 6f. Net Mailbox : Primary Server: HOSTNAME, NETADDRESS, HARDWARE, SOFTWARE 7a. Primary Server Hostname: 1: ns.jinr.dubna.su (jimex.jinr.dubna.su) 2: ns.kiae.su 3: ns.ussr.eu.net 7b. Primary Server Netaddress: 1: 159.93.17.7 2: 144.206.130.3 3: 192.16.202.11 7c. Primary Server Hardware: 1: SUN SPARCstation 1+ 2: 3: 7d. Primary Server Software: 1: Sun/OS 4.1.1 2: 3: (8) The Secondary server information. 8a. Secondary Server Hostname: 1: ns.kiae.su 2: ns.ussr.eu.net 8b. Secondary Server Netaddress: 1: 144.206.130.3 2: 192.16.202.11 8c. Secondary Server Hardware: 1: 2: 8d. Secondary Server Software: 1: 2: (9) If any currently registered hosts will be renamed into the new domain, please specify old hostname, netaddress, and new hostname. (10) Please describe your organization briefly. Nuclear research

2 1