Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Lameness terminology (was: Status of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis)

[Bill Woodcock <[e-mail]>]

> On May 3, 2018, at 4:28 PM, David Huberman <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>>> On May 3, 2018, at 3:27 PM, David Huberman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> In practical terms, when any type of registry strips away a lame delegation
>>> attached to a real, operating network with users behind it, and things break
>>> as a result…
> 
> Woody replied:
>> But isn’t that, by definition, impossible?  What could break as a result of a _lame_ delegation
>> being removed?
> 
> Mark provided you with a forward DNS example. Here’s a _common_ reverse DNS example:
> 
> You are the registrant of 192.168.0.0/17.
> You setup a single SOA record for 168.192.in-addr.arpa instead of properly defining 128 records
> for each /24 reverse zone.
> 
> PTR queries to the NSes will work (for the /17).
> 
> But you’ll fail the lameness checking at an RIR because the RIR checks all zones in the
> SOA record, and assumes that if you assert 168.192.in-addr.arpa, that you really meant
> to claim authority over the /16.

Errrr, but that’s a special RIR alternate understanding of what lameness means, specific to CIDR, no?

In the general DNS sense, if the NS can answer PTR queries for the thing delegated to it, it’s not lame.  And we’re talking about forward here, not in-addr, and more specifically, not the special CIDR in-addr.

                                -Bill