Hi Robert On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 01:17:03PM -0500, Robert Edmonds wrote: > BTW, there's also RFC 4697 / BCP 123 which appears to have two contradictory > recommendations: > > 2.3. Inability to Follow Multiple Levels of Indirection > > [...] > > 2.3.1. Recommendation > > Clearly constructing a delegation that relies on multiple levels of > indirection is not a good administrative practice. However, the > practice is widespread enough to require that iterative resolvers be > able to cope with it. Iterative resolvers SHOULD be able to handle > arbitrary levels of indirection resulting from out-of-zone name > servers. Iterative resolvers SHOULD implement a level-of-effort > counter to avoid loops or otherwise performing too much work in > resolving pathological cases. > > [...] > > You can support an unbounded (sorry) amount of indirection, or a bounded > amount of indirection, but not both.
By "arbitrary", I understand that it should be configurable (according
to its dictionary definition). It doesn't mean that the number of levels
of indirection is not bounded. Hence, the level-of-effort counter too.
Mukund
pgp5jbPReJBqy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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
