[ Apologies to those of you who have received this post in other fora. ] Hi, NZNOG folks. Are your DNS zones coming up lame? Why not check the DNS lamer report as you sip your Monday morning coffee? There are 19621 entries in the lamer report for the week ending 24 AUG 2003. These entries are often indicators of greater problems with name server configurations. http://www.cymru.com/DNS/lame.html We update this report each week, Sunday evening US CT. On a related note: We want your data! Please consider donating to Team Cymru the lame delegation log entries from your name server logs. We are happy to credit you and your employer, or keep the source anonymous, as you prefer. Such donations help the community at large. Be the first in your ASN to donate data! :) If you are interested in donating data, please contact us at team-cymru at cymru.com. Thanks! Rob, for Team Cymru. -- Rob Thomas http://www.cymru.com ASSERT(coffee != empty);
On Monday, August 25, 2003 7:23 PM [GMT+1200=NZT],
Rob Thomas
Are your DNS zones coming up lame? Why not check the DNS lamer report as you sip your Monday morning coffee? There are 19621 entries in the lamer report for the week ending 24 AUG 2003. These entries are often indicators of greater problems with name server configurations.
Good idea, though in its present form I'm a little worried a list like that will be a spammer's wet dream for whois querying... -Simon
Hi, Simon. ] Good idea, though in its present form I'm a little worried a list like ] that will be a spammer's wet dream for whois querying... Agreed. Such things are always a difficult balance between helping and making things worse. I'm hoping for the "helping," of course. :) Thanks, Rob. -- Rob Thomas http://www.cymru.com ASSERT(coffee != empty);
The Internet NZ Council has pointed out on numerous occasasions to current holders of the keys to the asylum the extremely bad record NZ has with Lame delegations, particularly since Domainz gave up a) being the only game in town b) absolutely enforcing the requirement of dual DNS entries. The current level of cluelessness is shameful particularly with respect to the managment of this, and the complete and utter failure to a) realise why this is important and even being aware it is a problem. Too busy doing policy, or dreaming stupid reasons to outsource the DRS, "cos when you don't know what you are doing, anything is a risk - even breathing..." I echo, the shame of being lame..... Roger De Salis Rob Thomas wrote:
[ Apologies to those of you who have received this post in other fora. ]
Hi, NZNOG folks.
Are your DNS zones coming up lame? Why not check the DNS lamer report as you sip your Monday morning coffee? There are 19621 entries in the lamer report for the week ending 24 AUG 2003. These entries are often indicators of greater problems with name server configurations.
http://www.cymru.com/DNS/lame.html
We update this report each week, Sunday evening US CT.
On a related note: We want your data! Please consider donating to Team Cymru the lame delegation log entries from your name server logs. We are happy to credit you and your employer, or keep the source anonymous, as you prefer. Such donations help the community at large. Be the first in your ASN to donate data! :) If you are interested in donating data, please contact us at team-cymru at cymru.com.
Thanks! Rob, for Team Cymru.
-- \_ Roger De Salis rdesalis at fx dot net dot nz
Roger De Salis wrote:
The Internet NZ Council has pointed out on numerous occasasions to current holders of the keys to the asylum the extremely bad record NZ has with Lame delegations, particularly since Domainz gave up a) being the only game in town b) absolutely enforcing the requirement of dual DNS entries.
The current level of cluelessness is shameful particularly with respect to the managment of this, and the complete and utter failure to a) realise why this is important and even being aware it is a problem.
Too busy doing policy, or dreaming stupid reasons to outsource the DRS, "cos when you don't know what you are doing, anything is a risk - even breathing..."
I echo, the shame of being lame.....
Seems you should feel the shame closer to home, Roger - "As of Sunday 25 August 2003 CST, the following lame delegations were detected. The nameserver with the name is lame for this zone --------------- ------------------------------ --------------------------- -- 202.46.160.4 pubsec.domainz.net.nz 195.130.in-addr.arpa 202.46.160.4 pubsec.domainz.net.nz 216.130.in-addr.arpa 202.46.160.4 pubsec.domainz.net.nz 62.156.in-addr.arpa 202.46.160.4 pubsec.domainz.net.nz akl.adv.net.nz 202.46.160.4 pubsec.domainz.net.nz globaled.org.nz 202.46.160.4 pubsec.domainz.net.nz midcentral.co.nz 202.46.160.4 pubsec.domainz.net.nz roar.net.nz 202.46.160.4 pubsec.domainz.net.nz webfactor.co.nz 202.46.160.4 pubsec.domainz.net.nz whi.co.nz" Keith Davidson
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:02:16 +1200, Roger De Salis
The Internet NZ Council has pointed out on numerous occasasions to current holders of the keys to the asylum the extremely bad record NZ has with Lame delegations, particularly since Domainz gave up a) being the only game in town b) absolutely enforcing the requirement of dual DNS entries.
As I understand it Domainz never enforced dual DNS entries, except at registration. This is one of the reasons why the Technical Committee in March 2002 (which Roger was listed as a member of) recommended (at http://tinyurl.com/l38h) to drop the requirement to check at registration but not delegate to the zone file any registration with less than two name servers. This decision was specifically consulted on NZNOG by the then Chair of Tech Cmte. The issue of lame delegations was referred again to Technical Committee (after reports it was increasing as a problem) and in May 2003 they reported (http://tinyurl.com/l38v) with recommendations accepted for the DNC to consult on: "1 - That the DNC adopt a policy to 'require' registrars to avoid lame delegations" "2 - That the DNC set up a mechanism to regularly test for lame delegations and a process for advising registrars of offending domains." These obviously could incur some costs on registrars, hence the need for consultation. If people have a view on the desirability of the above, they should make a submission to the DNC. DPF -- Blog: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz E-mail: david(a)farrar.com ICQ: 29964527 MSN: dpf666(a)hotmail.com
participants (5)
-
DPF -
Keith Davidson -
Rob Thomas -
Roger De Salis -
Simon Garner