Variations on lame delegations (terminology question)

[Mark_Andrews at isc.org]

> 
> >>>	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.

	Named penalises the rtt estimates of nameservers that are down.
 
> 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
> > 
> 
--
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark.Andrews at isc.org