DNS anomaly

[Jonathan de Boyne Pollard]

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.".