[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
  Web www.spinics.net

Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with

Mark Andrews wrote:
> > 
> > "not permitted" would require a "must not", but
> > I only see a "should not" here:
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1035#section-5.2
> RFC 1035 pre-dates the formalisation of MUST NOT/SHOULD NOT etc.
> 5.2. Use of master files to define zones
> When a master file is used to load a zone, the operation should be
> suppressed if any errors are encountered in the master file.  The
> rationale for this is that a single error can have widespread
> consequences.  For example, suppose that the RRs defining a delegation
> have syntax errors; then the server will return authoritative name
> errors for all names in the subzone (except in the case where the
> subzone is also present on the server).
> How anyone could rationalize serving a zone with missing data after
> reading that I don't know.  I do know that doing so does cause
> operational problems and fixing named to stop serving the zone on
> load errors was was one of the ealier things I did.

A zone file loaded by a DNS server is not necessarily an authoritative
zone file! And for a non-authoritative zone, a partial zone might
be considerably better than no data at all.

In 1993 we had a worldwide private network with modate-size links
to remote locations and the links would occasionally fail for a
few hours.  So I setup *all* DNS servers (primary&secondaries,
delegated primaries&secondaries and caching-only) to obtain all
zones via XFER in a tree structure.

Ietf mailing list

[IETF Annoucements]     [IETF Obscurity Interest]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux]     [Pilates]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]

Add to Google