> On 4 May 2018, at 10:11 am, Bill Woodcock <wo...@pch.net> wrote: > > > >> On May 3, 2018, at 4:23 PM, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote: >> A “Lame Delegation” can be to a particular machines. These delegation for >> .fj are lame and have been for over a year. > > Right, of course, but what breaks if you remove the lame nameservers from the > NS list? What am I not understanding? > > -Bill
The problem is that you can’t just remove the NS records from the parent side because name servers learn the NS records from the child side of the delegation as well as the parent side. The offending NS records need to be removed from both sides. This (or fixing whatever is broken) is what should be happening when faults are reported. When that doesn’t happen in a *reasonable* amount of time the *entire* delegation needs to be removed to force the issue. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
