On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 12:33 PM Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzme...@nic.fr> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 09:22:42AM -0400, > Shumon Huque <shu...@gmail.com> wrote > a message of 138 lines which said: > > > > The delegation (re)validation might be a reasonable place to > > > implement something to detect this and adjust the choice of NS on > > > the resolver's cache. > > > > I think most resolvers do a bit of this today already. If they detect a > > broken delegation, they will mark that server as lame, and remove it from > > the candidate nameservers for the zone (for a certain period of time), > and > > try another one. > > I don't think that you answer Brian's idea. The way I've read his > idea, he suggested, when a resolver detects a lame server (or when all > servers are lame?), to go back to the parent and to ask again the NS > set, to see if there is a new and better list. > Fair enough. If all the servers are lame, that sounds like a reasonable strategy. If only some are lame, and there are still usable servers available, I suspect resolver implementers won't want to revalidate to avoid the potential additional performance/latency costs. Shumon.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
