2011/7/8 Kevin Darcy <k...@chrysler.com>: > > I think it's worth emphasizing that in the first case, the contents of the > Authority Section were *mandatory* (see RFC 2308, Negative Caching), whereas > in the second case the authoritative nameserver was *optionally* providing > NS records in the Authority Section. It could have legally left the > Authority Section completely empty, and in fact many load-balancers, > pretending (to various degrees of competence) to be authoritative > nameservers, will give responses that look like that. > >
In the second case I think the NS records should be there in the Authority Section. Consider this case: example.com. IN NS dns.example.com. l2.example.com. IN NS dns.example.com. l3.l2.example.com. IN NS dns.example.com. When a query for example, dig l3.l2.example.com @dns.example.com, the nameserver answser without the Authority Section, then the client won't know the answer is in which authority zone. Thanks. _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
