On Mon, 11 Sep 1995 11:39:26 +0200 Willi Huber <huber@chx400.switch.ch> said:
Dear all,
there seems to be a DNS problem regarding the root name servers. We (that means the ch top-level DNS server) has picked up several times now a false A record for E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. The address picked up is binary zero. A restart only helps for a short time. Other top-level DNS servers contain the false entry as well.
Are there any recommendations for hostmasters of (1) top-level domains and (2) subsidiary domains? Should all be using the new A, B, C etc list of root-level servers? Many thanks. Mike Norris
Are there any recommendations for hostmasters of (1) top-level domains and (2) subsidiary domains? No. Should all be using the new A, B, C etc list of root-level servers? Yes. BTW, personally I don't like the ABC list system: in the old situation one could see at first glance where a root server is located. With the ABC list system that's no longer possible. Piet
Many thanks, Piet. I've heard a few people sharing your dislike of the new ABC system. For the sake of alphabetical order it sacrifices useful positional information. Mike Norris
On Fri, 15 Sep 1995, Piet Beertema wrote:
BTW, personally I don't like the ABC list system: in the old situation one could see at first glance where a root server is located. With the ABC list system that's no longer possible.
I agree on that, except that it's much easier to spot fake root NS' (I guess that's one of the reasons it was made too) -- Robert Martin-Legène, = EUnet Denmark = DKnet, Fruebjergvej 3, DK-2100 Kobenhavn O, +45 39 17 99 00
BTW, personally I don't like the ABC list system: in the old situation one could see at first glance where a root server is located. With the ABC list system that's no longer possible. I agree on that, except that it's much easier to spot fake root NS' (I guess that's one of the reasons it was made too) That's indeed a good argument. But in that case there would be no need to distribute root cache init files that contain the ABC list, but files that contain the real hostnames. That would buy you the best of 2 worlds: - The real root server information will flow in anyway and override whatever is in the init file. Thus fake root servers would still be spotted immediately. - In the init file one could still see where a given root server is located, by comparing the A record with the A records of the root servers. Piet
On Fri, 15 Sep 1995, Piet Beertema wrote:
- In the init file one could still see where a given root server is located, by comparing the A record with the A records of the root servers.
A bit complicated.. If the in-addr.arpa didn't map to the root-servers.net zone, but to the old name you could easily use host -A e.root-servers.net and find the old "location". Why they didn't do that I'm not really sure. -- Robert Martin-Legène, = EUnet Denmark = DKnet, Fruebjergvej 3, DK-2100 Kobenhavn O, +45 39 17 99 00
- In the init file one could still see where a given root server is located, by comparing the A record with the A records of the root servers. A bit complicated.. Not really: If the in-addr.arpa didn't map to the root-servers.net zone, but to the old name Note that I didn't ask for the reverse mapping to resolve to the old names. I only suggested to put the real hostnames in the init file. Then the only "complication" is that you have to compare A records by hand to match a root server name with its real hostname. Which is not a big deal... Piet
From: Piet Beertema <Piet.Beertema@cwi.nl>
Note that I didn't ask for the reverse mapping to resolve to the old names. I only suggested to put the real hostnames in the init file.
Hm-m, contestable suggestion - RU-BIND for example will don't work in this case - it will reject any packets received from [A-...].ROOT-SERVERS.NET about root servers itself. (Due to security reason - don't permit to change root servers for anybody !) - Leonid Yegoshin, LY22
The list of root servers like [A-...].ROOT-SERVERS.NET has the large advance - due to DNS name packing in DNS replies this packet is smaller than old, and it possible to increase the root server list. Just with current DNS packet limit = 512 bytes. - Leonid Yegoshin, LY22
participants (4)
-
egoshin＠ihep.su -
Mike Norris -
Piet Beertema -
Robert Martin-Legene