Variations on lame delegations (terminology question)

[Mark_Andrews at isc.org]

> 
> 
> Mark_Andrews at isc.org wrote:
> >>My understanding of a "lame delegation" is that a listed nameserver for 
> >>a zone is not authoritative for that zone.
> >>
> >>What terminology is/should be used if the listed nameserver isn't 
> >>a nameserver?  I.e. if it isn't and never does run a DNS nameserver?
> >>
> >>And what if the NSDNAME of the NS record points to either a completely 
> >>non-existant node, or that node has no address records (A or AAAA)?
> > 
> > 
> > 	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.

	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