Variations on lame delegations (terminology question)

[Simon Waters]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ladislav Vobr wrote:
>
> but it doesn't stop bind to use them and use them and use them again and
> again, if there is no better choice, thus causing very interesting
> moments for many recursive server administrators? Is it really bad idea
> to have lame-ttl covering the second and case as well, if we all agree
> this is lame as well.

We've been over this before.

Short disruption 5 minutes - maybe local powercut or similar.
Disconnect from Internet.
UK query attempted, all UK (or root?) name servers marked lame as they
don't respond.
LAME-TTL 30 mintues....
Downtime 35 minutes.

Current situation 5 minutes downtime.

If everyone had "geographically" diverse nameservers it might make some
sense to cache inaccessibility, but they don't.

The nature of caching servers is to act as a damper in such circumstances.

No one else seems to see this as a major problem, is there perhaps
something wrong with your own network architecture that is causing this
to be more of a problem than it should be?

I don't believe there are enough such completely broken zones repeatedly
queried this can't be handled by other means, I mean any zone that broke
 is unlikely to be very popular.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE/m7MDGFXfHI9FVgYRAhYiAKDVcO5QVPK4koUw2b3+F9Ug2IS3ngCeMsBK
3mGqkHGvLn3eDLkP+5wfanU=
=8kkJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----