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

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

> On 4 May 2018, at 9:28 am, 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.

You see the same with forward zones with domain parking. They set up a .com (or root) zone for all the *.com zones parked on the server and break all negative responses as a consequence.

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: [phone]              INTERNET: [e-mail]