[dns-operations] dynect.net outage
dns at fl1ger.de
Mon May 30 06:47:13 UTC 2022
On 30 May 2022, at 8:34, Robert Edmonds wrote:
>> So how do you expect the domain to be resolved if all of your out
>> of bailiwick name server names no longer point to an IP address?
> By using the working nameservers with resolvable names specified in the
> delegation from the parent zone, which never changed in this particular
> case. This is what Unbound's resolution algorithm does if there are not
> too many nonexisting nameserver target names in the child's NS RRset,
> and what other resolver algorithms do.
So you mean the parent provided additional records (A/AAAA) when issuing
a referral? Otherwise I can not see how from an empty cache you can
resolve this domain if all of the name server names supplied are NXDOMAIN.
> There is more than one resolver implementation, and they differ in the
> results of resolving a zone with this type of misconfiguration, and none
> of them are the reference implementation of DNS. So just looking at a
> particular resolver algorithm returning SERVFAIL when encountering a
> particular data pattern starting from a cold cache cannot tell us
> whether the algorithm or the data is at fault.
I agree on this, however the difference in implementation are less
when it comes to resolving from a cold cache and all the explanations
given so far for me point to the domain being unresolvable for all
implementations from an empty cache.
More information about the dns-operations