[dns-operations] *.a. SERVFAIL's on tinnie.arin.net

Edward Lewis Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz
Fri Mar 23 15:42:23 UTC 2007

At 15:31 +0000 3/23/07, Jeroen Massar wrote:

>Though these are IPv6 reverses, hosts trying to look them up will most
>likely have IPv6 enabled.  IPv6-only hosts (if they exist) will most
>likely simply skip over the server and try the next one. It doesn't hurt
>having it not defined though, it was just something I noticed while tracing.

True, but, sometimes I may be able to route v6 from A to B, but not 
to C and D where the DNS' are.  (Just for instance.)  I'm not saying 
v6 is evil, but it is still spotty in areas.  Even if it is good 
local to someone person, you have to prepare to handle those in the 
"spotty" places.

>I don't think sending it to dns-operations is 'indiscreet' especially as

;) There's a difference between remembering to do something 
discreetly and being indiscreet.  There are times when is seems like 
someone is trying to embarrass an organization when they are merely 
trying to warn of a possible widespread outage.  This is more of a 
general reminder...when we observe something that looks like an 
outage - a discreet message to the source of the issue is always 
better received than seeing a public report.

If you think others should know - send a discreet message first and 
then say publicly something like "I've reported this, but to save 
others the trouble..."
This is all about perceptions and not about intentions.

(Sorry for being so hard, maybe it's the rain outside or just the end 
of the IETF that has me in the mood to whine. ;))
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468

Sarcasm doesn't scale.

More information about the dns-operations mailing list