<quote who="Randy Bush">
And for what operational benefit? Removal of the record(s) certainly wouldn't be appropriate
why not? what is the use of a zone that is not being served?
A query not being answered to you or the verifier is not the same thing as a zone not being served. (I would also assume that a failed check would result in the zone being perhaps "queued" for more re-testing or asking the netop to autoack something.) I still don't see the operational benefit in removing these records. (Checking them could be worthwhile (see below), but removing them...why?) <quote who="Tim Wilde">
You mean http://www.cymru.com/DNS/lame.html ? Team Cymru have been doing that for ages. Doesn't actually force the issue anywhere, but it does get checked and published, using contributed resolver logs.
Three comments: 1) I think there is some operational value in tracking this data for the in-addr.arpa tree but less benefit to getting this data for general forward nameservice (except maybe to people like you and me). 2) For Cymru's page to be of much benefit it needs a lot more resolver contributions. If some large, end-user ISPs submitted data it would become much more useful. The problem (in getting data) with this project is that the people who submit are not necessarily the people who benefit which provides less incentive for sysops to participate. 3) With this data published someone could check the list for lame delegations and come to our site and setup those domains and begin using them. This could be used by spammers and other sludge to "borrow" domains. A solvable problem but one which would become substantially easier if there was a comprehensive list of lame delegations that could be correlated with third-party dns services. -davidu ---------------------------------------------------- David A. Ulevitch - Founder, EveryDNS.Net Washington University in St. Louis http://david.ulevitch.com -- http://everydns.net ----------------------------------------------------