Chained NS delegation: RFC compliant or not?

[phn at icke-reklam.ipsec.nu]

Andreas Meile <andreas at hofen.ch> wrote:
> Dear BIND users

> Recently, I would visit a web site hosted by a German company. The prob=
lem:
> I can't visit it because I get a lot of

> Oct 10 22:28:47 pingu named[153]: Lame server on 'ns1.foobar.de' (in
> 'foobar.de'?): [192.36.144.211].53 'H.NIC.de'
> Oct 10 22:28:48 pingu named[153]: Lame server on 'ns1.foobar.de' (in
> 'foobar.de'?): [210.81.13.179].53 'K.NIC.de'
> Oct 10 22:28:48 pingu named[153]: Lame server on 'ns1.foobar.de' (in
> 'foobar.de'?): [81.91.161.5].53 'A.NIC.de'
> Oct 10 22:28:48 pingu named[153]: Lame server on 'ns1.foobar.de' (in
> 'foobar.de'?): [193.0.0.237].53 'F.NIC.de'

> in my local name server which runs as BIND named. The analysation shows=
 the
> following situation:

> pingu:~ # host -t ns site-i-want-visit.de
> site-i-want-visit.de name server ns2.foobar.de
> site-i-want-visit.de name server ns1.foobar.de
> pingu:~ # host -t ns foobar.de
> foobar.de name server ns3.delegated-again.net
> foobar.de name server ns.delegated-again.net
> foobar.de name server ns2.delegated-again.net
> pingu:~ # _

> i.e. this webhoster ISP implemented a chained delegation. At my knowled=
ge,
> this violates RFC 1912, section 2.8. Could anyone agree or disagree tha=
t?

I disagree. A Lame delegation is failed work, a manual mistake or if you =
like, incompetence.


--=20
Peter H=E5kanson        =20
        IPSec  Sverige      ( At Gothenburg Riverside )
           Sorry about my e-mail address, but i'm trying to keep spam out=
,
	   remove "icke-reklam" if you feel for mailing me. Thanx.