On Oct 24 2013, Paul Hoffman wrote:
The new records for one of the shiny new gTLDs are:
xn--ngbc5azd. 172800 IN NS a.nic.xn--ngbc5azd.
xn--ngbc5azd. 172800 IN NS b.nic.xn--ngbc5azd.
xn--ngbc5azd. 172800 IN NS c.nic.xn--ngbc5azd.
xn--ngbc5azd. 172800 IN NS d.nic.xn--ngbc5azd.
a.nic.xn--ngbc5azd. 172800 IN A 37.209.192.3
a.nic.xn--ngbc5azd. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:dcd:1:0:0:0:0:3
b.nic.xn--ngbc5azd. 172800 IN A 37.209.194.3
b.nic.xn--ngbc5azd. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:dcd:2:0:0:0:0:3
c.nic.xn--ngbc5azd. 172800 IN A 37.209.196.3
c.nic.xn--ngbc5azd. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:dcd:3:0:0:0:0:3
d.nic.xn--ngbc5azd. 172800 IN A 37.209.198.3
d.nic.xn--ngbc5azd. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:dcd:4:0:0:0:0:3
This works, of course, but it feels a bit fragile for me. Is there a history
of this being unsafe? Of being more safe than NSs whose names are in other TLDs?
Whatever the safety aspects (there are probably arguments both ways) it
certainly isn't uncommon. Going by the delegation NS records, 57 out of
323 TLDs have all NS records inside themselves. These include 51 ISO3166
ccTLDs, 5 ASCII gTLDs (biz, mil, net, tel, travel) and [now!] just one
IDN gTLD (the above).
--
Chris Thompson University of Cambridge Computing Service,
Email: [email protected] Roger Needham Building, 7 JJ Thomson Avenue,
Phone: +44 1223 334715 Cambridge CB3 0RB, United Kingdom.
_______________________________________________
dns-operations mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations
dns-jobs mailing list
https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs
