Heho,
> Isn't the latter selection more constrained than the former, that is,
> shouldn't an "All NS fulfill X" criterion lead to lower numbers than "at
> least one NS fulfills X"?
I made the categories exclusive; Sorry if this was not clear. So:
> > At least one NS is a CNAME and zone has
Hi Tobias,
On 8/26/22 07:31, Tobias Fiebig wrote:
At least one NS is a CNAME and zone has more than one NS:
Months: 83
avg: 0.0713%
min: 0.0165%
max: 0.8398%
median: 0.0387%
All NS are CNAME and zone has more than one NS:
Months: 83
avg: 0.6690%
min: 0.0123%
max: 1.7653%
median: 0.3242%
Isn't
Heho,
As a follow up; Out of curiosity, me and my colleagues took a look at our
passive dataset counting domains that have various forms of CNAME in NS between
Jan 2015 and Dec 2021. Figured it might be interesting for some to take a look
at the data; Results below.
Note that over the last
On 8/23/22 7:00 AM, Tobias Fiebig wrote:
Context: I am currently dealing with academic reviewers claiming that
not using CNAMEs for NS is, quote, "[...] by the spec, [..] true, [but]
also commonly ignored in practice.
Obeying the speed limit is "[...] by the spec, [...] true, [but] also
CNAMEs cannot be installed as glue which makes
@ SOA . . 0 0 0 0 0
@ NS ns1
ns1 CNAME host
host A 1.2.3.4
problematic.
Also named refuses to follow NS records that refer to CNAMEs as they can’t be
used reliably and no we are not going to try and make them work in the cases
where they could
Heho,
> Vladimír Čunát wrote:
> I believe that's a wrong approach in principle and risky in practice.
Oh, i am fully with you on this one; I just try to make sure I did not miss a
development that outdated RFC2181.
Context: I am currently dealing with academic reviewers claiming that not using
On 23/08/2022 14.15, Tobias Fiebig wrote:
Is there something I missed/should CNAME in NS be considered valid now? [...]
However, it seems odd that RFC2181 and operational practice seem to diverge
here.
This sounds like running a few tests in the wild might imply that such
setup is OK.
Heho,
I am currently doing some measurement work related to DNS delegation. In this
work, we initially decided to exclude names listed in NS that only contain a
CNAME, following RFC2181 Sec. 10.3., which--as far as I can see--has not been
updated, stating:
10.3. MX and NS records
The
