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

Reply via email to