Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

RE: Stability of the Internet?
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer () mhsc com>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:06:16 -0700


From: Bruce Campbell [mailto:bc () vicious dropbear id au]
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 10:41 PM

On Fri, 18 May 2001, Eric A. Hall wrote:

There is some (as yet unpublished) research data that says 
~20% of the
queries currently going to the root servers are for invalid 
TLDs (as setup
by .private internal operators). Endorsing the use of 
private domains will
make this much worse.

There was some mention (cue bill) at the last IETF about an 
endorsement of
'.int' for internal networks by some insert-dns-clueless-company-here.
which of course sends (significant?) unwanted traffic towards the .int
nameservers.  

Since INT is for intenational treaty organization, the use of INT internally
would create a collision. Thereby, masking the entire INT TLD from the
clueless org that did that. In past /ICANN/DNSO discussions it has been
suggested, that we reserve a LOCAL or PRIVATE TLD for internal use only. Let
me know what y'all think and which one y'all prefer. My personal preference
is for both (three tiered <Internet>/Local/Private). The next question is;
should this be an RFC?

A better step would be to thoroughly endorse .private or 
similar, and have
the distributed root.hints file point it back to the local 
nameserver, so
such dns traffic does not end up on the cruel and heartless internet.

You gotta be careful here, to not point to a recursive server, for a
non-recursive reference.

Of course, lack of clue when setting up internal networks will always
happen (such as allowing those queries out, or not setting up 
a correct
private tree off your regular domain etc etc).


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault