RFC 6303 and bind 9.9.0

[Mark Andrews]

In message <7610864823C0D04D89342623A3ADC9DE2E339A17 at hopple.countryday.net>, "Sp
ain, Dr. Jeffry A." writes:
> I reviewed RFC 6303, which recommends configuring a number of zones using a=
> n empty zone file as follows:
> 
> @ 10800 IN SOA @ nobody.invalid. 1 3600 1200 604800 10800
> @ 10800 IN NS @
> 
> In bind 9.9.0 this results in errors for each zone referring to the empty z=
> one file as follows:
> Feb 29 19:24:30 ns0s named[6044]: zone 10.in-addr.arpa/IN: NS '10.in-addr.a=
> rpa' has no address records (A or AAAA)
> Feb 29 19:24:30 ns0s named[6044]: zone 10.in-addr.arpa/IN: not loaded due t=
> o errors.
> 
> Changing the second line to '@ 10800 IN NS localhost.' eliminates the error=
> s.
> 
> This question was raised several weeks ago (see https://lists.isc.org/piper=
> mail/bind-users/2012-January/086321.html), but no explanation was offered a=
> s to why '@ 10800 IN NS @' causes these errors. What additional thoughts do=
> es anyone have?

The built in empty zone processing is aware of the special case of
NS records without address records.  The generic zone processing
rules treat this as a error condition.

> Another question with regard to RFC 6303: 255.255.255.255.in-addr.arpa is r=
> ecommended for an empty zone. RFC 1912, on the contrary, and stipulating to=
> the fact that this document is 15 years old,

And informational.

>					        recommends 255.in-addr.arpa. =
> Going with the recommendations in RFC 6303 results in 'dig @localhost -x 22=
> 5.x.y.z' sending a query out to the Internet for any 255.x.y.x other than 2=
> 55.255.255.255. Which of these alternative empty zones should be used in th=
> e current DNS environment and why?

BCP 163 (RFC 6303) is based on BCP 153 (RFC 5735) which trumps RFC 1912.

> Thanks. Jeff.
> 
> Jeffry A. Spain
> Network Administrator
> Cincinnati Country Day School
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org