Hello Jim, et al, thanks for your reply. And I figure also some misinterpretation of my intentions. Truely, I need be clearer. Let me take one step back and officially ask the RIPE NCC to provider solid figures for the following statistics (hence I base my proposal on them and until now it was just an assumption): Total number to reverse_DNS requests for RIPE NCC addressblocks for a given timeframe hitting NCC servers (say for a test: 1 week). a. Ratio of successful NS replies to correctly delegated zones (independently if they might be correctly setup) of our members b. vs. replies that are not (yet) delegated zones (and yes, you were correct, they are NOT called lame-delegations) - which are the ones I am actually interested in for the proposal. c. vs. any other (say errors or RR that won't play a role here currently) I am also happy to take this proposal discussion the DNS-WG, but at the end I intended to let the RIPE NCC deliver an additional service to their members. Best regards, Kurt Kayser