[dns-operations] Dumb question: why is it that some registries limit the nameservers that can be delegated to?

Paul Vixie paul at redbarn.org
Fri Sep 12 00:44:05 UTC 2014

On 9/11/2014 5:22 PM, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:
>> Which indicates broken recursive servers.  Recursive servers should
>> be expecting misconfigured authoritative servers.  You don't stuff
>> up authoritative behaviour because you have broken recursive servers.
> I do whatever is best for customers: partially delayed resolution,
> which is then mitigated by caching, is better than partial outages.

i don't agree i think it's better for your customers if they see an
outage. because that outcome has some hope of forcing the broken
authority servers to feel some heat.

if you act as an "enabler" for bad authority server behaviour, then that
behaviour can become entrenched.

giving away your first-mover advantage will hurt your customers, a lot,
in the long run. and my customers, too.


More information about the dns-operations mailing list