Variations on lame delegations (terminology question)

[Ladislav Vobr]

>>>	They are all lame delegations.
>>
>>hmm but for some reasons, isc bind lame-ttl option has a different 
>>opinion, and considers server to be lame only in the first case :-(,
> 
> 
> 	Well the second case you can't tell the difference between
> 	that and a nameserver that is down which is how it is
> 	treated.

do i really need to know?, what is the point using incredible system 
resources of a bind recursive server, just to follow up with servers, 
which are apperantly down, and everybody except the bind itself has 
figured it out.

Ladislav

> 
> 	The third case can be detected and the servers are ignored.
> 
> 	Mark
> 
> 
>>Ladislav
>>
>>
>>>--
>>>Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
>>>1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>>>PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark.Andrews at isc.org
>>>
>>
>>
> --
> Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark.Andrews at isc.org
>