To:
Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>
CC:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
"Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>
Date:
Wed, 26 Apr 2000 10:02:15 -0700
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: root server load and dynamic updates.
> I wouldn't advocate breaking the protocol to lessen the pain caused > by broken implementations. Yah, I feel the same way about hacking up a solution like this. I don't think that the implementation is "broken" though. A more accurate definition would be that a large number of misconfigurations are exposing weaknesses in the protocol, with the caveat being that the aggressive directory/domain integration used in this particular product is making it easier than ever for users to misconfigure their setup. The same problems can occur with any DNS server that is misconfigured. This hack is a possible solution to prevent these kinds of problems from all of them. The best long-term solution would be a RR or DHCP option that explicitly stated which server(s) should get the updates, rather than relying on the MNAME field. While MNAME works great for managed zones, it obviously opens up some problems. Short term, one solution is bogus MNAME. -- Eric A. Hall ehall@ehsco.com +1-650-685-0557 http://www.ehsco.com