Jim Reid schrieb:
I also encouraged Michael to do two things. One was to submit a draft/paper to this WG on good DNS practices. If the WG picks up on that -- ie they get something to actually work on -- there's then a "standard" for Tier-1 operators and bureaucrats to follow. Next, if there's something that needs to be done to make SIP servers more robust to lame delegation errors, these should be written up too. That piece of work may be out of scope for the RIPE ENUM WG. Though this is for the WG to decide.
I dont think I need to write a paper on good DNS practice because of that incident. The errors made in the case in question do not require that. I will, however, have work done on those ENUM resolvers we contribute to to have a blacklist mechanism for such "operators". All I want I demand that current best practice be obeyed on delegations, such that the following setup cannot happen: sil1:~# host -t ns 9.3.e164.arpa. 9.3.e164.arpa name server dns.istsupcti.it. 9.3.e164.arpa name server dns2.istsupcti.it. sil1:~# host dns.istsupcti.it. dns.istsupcti.it has address 62.101.92.173 sil1:~# host dns2.istsupcti.it. dns2.istsupcti.it has address 62.101.92.174 Do you note two adjacent IP adresses here? Janitor trips over wire, country gone - superb. And we are falling over here in political correctness, Get real, guys - dont tell me we cant do anything here, it's always been this way and we might be rocking some boat. We need to tell these guys to get a life, network diversity and some clue before having a delegation, and be done. You dont want the heat, you dont go into the kitchen. -Michael