DNS anomaly
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
J.deBoynePollard at tesco.net
Fri Jul 25 14:34:12 UTC 2003
RK> There seems to be a problem with the Telstra DNS servers [...]
No, there isn't. There is nothing wrong with either 139.134.5.51 or
139.134.2.190. Neither of those servers are "ninthave.net." content
DNS servers. (The "ninthave.net." content DNS servers are
212.100.225.215, 194.153.169.31, 194.153.169.15, and 212.13.198.12.)
You sent them queries with the RD bit set to 0 in your tests, and
they replied with whatever data they happened to have cached at the
time. The lack of "glue" resource records in the reply is not an
error. They simply didn't have the glue cached. Right now, they
don't have _anything_ about "ninthave.net." in their caches at all.
Moreover: The fact that an apparently entirely randomly selected IP
address, 61.9.208.24, doesn't provide DNS service to the world is not
a problem, either.
Furthermore: I don't know from whence you get the idea that
RK> "Counsel.com.au." also has an IN A address at
RK> "ns7.zoneedit.com."
but this (with the obvious error of "IN A address" for "IN NS name"
corrected) is not supported by any DNS data that are being published
by either the "counsel.com.au." or the "com.au." content DNS servers,
or by any of the test results that you show.
There _is_ a problem with "counsel.com.au.", but it is nothing to do
with ZoneEdit, with Telstra, or with your randomly selected IP
address. Because of the choice of intermediate domain names in the
delegation information, the domain is effectively glueless.
"[a-d].ns.bytemark.co.uk." are not subdomains of "com.au.".
More information about the bind-users
mailing list