DNS lameness question
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@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]
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uhlar@fantomas.sk>wrote:
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?
Write an script to mass change all your delegations and send it all as GPG/PGP signed mail. - 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? Put dns.nextra.sk back into the zone until you resolve this issue. Ondrej. -- Ondrej Sury technicky reditel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Americka 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz <sip%3Aondrej.sury@nic.cz> tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 -----------------------------------------
Hello,
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uhlar@fantomas.sk>wrote:
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?
On 17.03.09 11:43, Ondřej Surý wrote:
Write an script to mass change all your delegations and send it all as GPG/PGP signed mail.
- 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)
Since nobody other replied and you did not comment on this question, may I safely assume thet it would cause no problems if I'll leave it here, except those lameness warnings?
- is there anything other to advise me?
Put dns.nextra.sk back into the zone until you resolve this issue.
-- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@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. 2B|!2B, that's a question!
- 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)
Since nobody other replied and you did not comment on this question, may I safely assume thet it would cause no problems if I'll leave it here, except those lameness warnings?
I am not aware of any RIPE policy which would remove those lame records on basis of ugliness ;). Ondrej -- Ondrej Sury technicky reditel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Americka 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 -----------------------------------------
On 19.03.09 22:10, Ondřej Surý wrote:
- 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)
Since nobody other replied and you did not comment on this question, may I safely assume thet it would cause no problems if I'll leave it here, except those lameness warnings?
I am not aware of any RIPE policy which would remove those lame records on basis of ugliness ;).
if there's no ripe policy that would remove those delegations... Yes I want to solve the problem fast. But it will still take some time... -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@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. "They say when you play that M$ CD backward you can hear satanic messages." "That's nothing. If you play it forward it will install Windows."
participants (2)
-
Matus UHLAR - fantomas -
Ondřej Surý