> > And most of the domains never have working name servers at all. The
> > internic rules say you're supposed to have name service first. This
> > isn't always practical, but if speculative domains don't have DNS within
> > a few days, I'd think that'd be enough to wipe the allocations.
>
> So many people keep harping on the point of having name servers first.
> But that's a silly and moot point. The name servers may well be behind
> a firewall and the use of the domain name is intended for internal use
> and needs to be registered externally for the same reason one should use
> allocated address space from ARIN instead of picking random addresses.
If you are behind a firewall, you can use RFC 1918 addresses. You don't
need addresses from ARIN, and you don't need to pick at random.
Relaxing the requirements for name servers seems like an excellent way
of making the DNS even more broken than it already is. A number of TLDs
(.no being one of them) will *enforce* a minimum of two functioning name
servers for each domain. If you don't like this, you can of course take
your business elsewhere.
> This is like telling people they have to be routed on the Internet to be
> able to get an address allocation.
Sure. Why should they be allocated global addresses when RFC 1918 is
available?
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug(a)nethelp.no
