- dns-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Proposal: Charter for DN* wg at RIPE
by Patrik Fältström 13 Aug '03

13 Aug '03

Note: I want _LOTS_ of comments on the following. You will see after this a message about the agenda of the meeting at RIPE 46. Idea: Create a list of "topics" which are divided in two groups: [1] Topics which are larger discussion items. Each one will have one or more deliverables. There is a small group of people responsible for deliverables and they report back every DN* meeting. [2] Organisations and groups (inside and outside of RIPE and RIPE NCC) which report to the DNS wg what is happening, what is currently discussed etc. This is summarized at every RIPE meeting as a compiled report to the RIPE DNS wg participants so they know what is happening in the world The agenda at the RIPE meeting then consists of these two PLUS two other categories: [3] Invited longer talks [4] Short reports from groups which do not come back every meeting The result from [3] and [4] is only included in the minutes of the RIPE meeting. Nothing more, nothing less. Is that ok? Given this is ok, the question is then what to include under each one of the bullets. This is (as you will see on the proposed agenda) what I want to have discussed at the RIPE meeting. Below you can see _MY_PERSONAL_ idea. Probably many things forgotten, possibly many things wrong. Please correct. Let me know you are interested in spending some CPU cycles. Small things which will make the future more organized is that my goal is to keep exactly the same "item numbers" for every item, and never changing them over the years. That means the only topic I have got suggestions on (see below) is 1.1. Next will be 1.2. Etc. paf Charter for the DN* wg at RIPE (to be updated at each RIPE meeting) ------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Topics with deliverables 1.1 Quality of the DNS We have a few contributors here: + domainSentinel tool for lame checking Chagres Role Account <role(a)chagres.net> + RIPE NCC DNS Monitoring Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg(a)ripe.net> + DNSCHECK for verification of delegations Patrik Fältström <paf(a)cisco.com> Deliverables: 1.1.1 Recommendations for measures DNS serv*ice* quality 1.1.2 Recommendations how to summarise the results for consumption by the non-technical public 1.1.3 What is an "error"? 1.1.3.1 "Lame" 1.1.3.2 "Wrong glue" 1.1.3.3 "Non-authoritative response" 1.1.3.4 "Transport over TCP" 1.1.3.5 ... 1.1.4 What is good practice regarding measurement? 1.1.5 ... [2] Reports / status items 2.1 Monitoring 2.1.1 RIPE NCC DNS Monitoring Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg(a)ripe.net> 2.2 DNS in the IETF 2.2.1 DNSEXT 2.2.2 DNSOP 2.2.3 Other wg's which touch DNS 2.3 EPP deployment / experience / status Edward Lewis <edlewis(a)arin.net> 2.4 Root servers 2.5 IDN deployment / experience 2.6 DNSSEC deployment / experience 2.7 Anycast deployment / experience 2.7.1 Dave Knight 2.7.2 I-Root (Lars-Johan Liman) 2.7 CENTR Technical committee 2.8 DNS Software 2.8.1 Bind 2.8.2 OpenReg 2.8.3 ... 2.9 IPv6 deployment / experience Unknown

2 2

Looking for a tool to find the fastest DNS server
by Stephane Bortzmeyer 04 Aug '03

04 Aug '03

I'm looking for a small tool (running on Unix) that can take a list of DNS servers, a query to ask (such as "A ns1.nic.fr.") and which can print the fastest server to reply. Something like "netselect" which only exercices the kernel, not the actual servers, unfortunately (and which can be blocked by filters): ~ % netselect {a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m}.root-servers.net 123 i.root-servers.net BIND9's lib/dns/resolver.c has code to do so and I wonder if someone extracted it in a simple tool?

4 6

Remote registration,
by alireza saleh 31 Jul '03

31 Jul '03

Dear Friends, Thank you about a software that supports reseller, I think due to special laws in my country,a software have to be developed by the team and I, besides the technology to do the payment by credit card or the same is not available in my country, the only available way to pay is bank transfer. Do we have any program for editing and appending Bind Zone files ?,in the other word a CGI program that gives the name sever, ip address and the domain name as input ,then it modifies or add this entry ? would you also please give me a suggestion about the DNS server program to be use instead of bind ? it should be Secure, Reliable and fast, I always use Bind , but I heard it has many bugs eventhough I haven't seen any. Thank you in advance, Kind regards Alireza Saleh.

8 14

AW: [dns-wg] Remote registration,
by Chahn 31 Jul '03

31 Jul '03

Please deleate my e-Mail account out of your mailing-list. I am no longer interested in these information! Best regards C. Hahn -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- Von: Edward Lewis [mailto:edlewis@arin.net] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 31. Juli 2003 04:28 An: Stephane Bortzmeyer Cc: dns-wg(a)ripe.net Betreff: Re: [dns-wg] Remote registration, At 11:05 +0200 7/28/03, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 12:14:46AM +0200, > Brad Knowles <brad.knowles(a)skynet.be> wrote >> If you want a fully compliant nameserver, there's not much choice. > >Fully compliant with every RFC ever published about the DNS? Come on, Before even wading into that argument - the RFCs on DNS are so loosely written, being "fully compliant" is impossible. For instance, there is code in RFC 1876 which is buggy. (Yes, yes, it's an experimental RFC...but...) -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-703-227-9854 ARIN Research Engineer ...as graceful as a blindfolded bull in a china shop...

2 1

looking for a tool
by Edward Lewis 25 Jul '03

25 Jul '03

Although I don't have my requirements completely mapped out yet, I want to see if there's a tool available to do what I think I want. I want to give a DNS zone name and an network address to the tool and have the tool tell me if what's at port 53 of that address returns an authoritative answer for the SOA RR. By "network address" I mean IP, v4 now and later, v6 now *and/or* later. By "give" - the format is negotiable, but I will be starting from a list that associates not only my notion of the authoritative servers and a registration record I have. By "authoritative answer" I expect to see the RCODE=0, AA flag=1, and in the answer section (one SOA, no CNAME please) I want the tool to make a decent effort at UDP congestion handling, i.e., a few retries if there is no answer. I want to be able to call the tool repeatedly and possibly in parallel. I want the tool to return the result in a way I can easily parse with something as stupid as a computer. ;) I mention this because I want a simplified result for use in my testing, as opposed to the next request. I want the tool to return me all header fields and answer section so I can feed this to a diagnosis tool and a stat collector - returned in a way I can send to a different analysis procedure. There are a lot of things I don't want the tool to do. I don't care about the contents of the SOA record's RDATA. no responsible party testing, timing parameters no serial number test I don't care about any other record type. no NS consistency test I don't care about any other aspect of network operations no smtp probing Well, I care, but they are beyond my current mission scope. PS - Comments on my "I wants" and I don't wants" are welcome. ;) -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-703-227-9854 ARIN Research Engineer ...as graceful as a blindfolded bull in a china shop...

3 2

DNS Meeting in Amsterdam in September
by Patrik Fältström 18 Jul '03

18 Jul '03

Being the person responsible for the agenda for the September meeting, I hereby ask for agenda items, and general input. As we all know, the DNS wg has been not as focused as would be expected by a wg at RIPE. The new chairs want to change that. As you can see on http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/dns/index.html, the charter is extremely limited, and on top of that wrong: > The Domain Name System working group discusses current BIND versions. > It is also concerned with potential pollution of the DNS and with > domain name related issues. The DNS working group has the last couple of meetings had two goals: - Discussion forum for "current DNS operational issues" - Presentations on status for various project/initiatives elsewhere, such as the DNS related topics in the IETF If it is the case this wg feel there is space for both of the above (something I personally hope), the next step is to focus each one of them a bit more. Especially the first one. The meta-discussion I would like to see in Amsterdam, with a conclusion at the end, is what current DNS operational issues include. The answer should be in the form of a list of potential deliverables, results from discussions on this mailing list and at the meetings. I want a designated individual responsible for each item, and further, a small group of dedicated people which has as main task of moving the discussion forward. The topics are to be synchronised with what happens in DNR Forum, and because of this, you see DN* on the agenda for the next RIPE meeting. The division of labour between the two groups (if we will still have two groups in the future) must be more clear. CENTR today exists as a separate organisation just like anyone else, so maybe the DNR activities should be rolled into the DNS wg (i.e. the two groups should be merged). One of the topics could of course be report from CENTR what is happening, just like other bodies can do it. Proposed agenda for the meeting is because of this: Part 1: Initial discussion about the charter of the DNS wg - What are we doing here? - If we should talk about "operational issues/experiences with DNS", what can be the deliverables? + Topic: Deliverable: Topic-master: Group-members: - What bodies are interesting to have reports by, part from the Topic-masters? Part 2: Reports from DNS-related organisations (2 minutes each): [This is only a list I create from the top of my head...no one has confirmed or even asked to be on the agenda] - IETF: DNSOP - IETF: DNS - Root-server operators - CENTR technical committee - ccTLD registries - Registrars Conclusion: - What is the new wording of the charter? Comments are appreciated. This is _your_ wg, and we are to work together to reach some goal which is of benefit for all of us. paf

3 6

Ripe 46 Meeting
by alireza saleh 17 Jul '03

17 Jul '03

Dear Friends, I'm new in this mailing list, I'm technical person of IR cctld, We would like to start registration through resellers,I would like to know if there is a software available to perform the automatic registration. I'll be grateful if you would give me any idea about reselling , besides , I would like to register for ripe 46 meeting, and would like to know if any discussion about DNS will be held ? Kind regards Alireza.

6 9

Re: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/dns-wg/2003/msg00115.html
by Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. 14 Jul '03

14 Jul '03

> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/dns-wg/2003/msg00115.html > "Would you like a presentation from Habeas?" > === > > Not really... Heh. Ok, fair enough. I thought that the group might find something on building out an ISP-to-ISP DNSWL interesting. Regards, Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. CEO Habeas, Inc.

2 1

EOF, Amsterdam, September - Call for Presentations
by Daniel Karrenberg 11 Jul '03

11 Jul '03

[apologies for duplicates, hint: they have the same message-id] Hi Network Operations Folk, the holiday period is starting! A good time to consider preparing a presentation at the European Operators Forum (EOF) to be held during the 46th RIPE meeting in Amsterdam on September 1st and 2nd. We would like to have as many practical, hands-on presentations as possible this time. Remember: They do not have to be long. We prefer an stand-up interesting 10 minute presentation over a well prepared 90 minutes explanation of something not so interesting to operators. Find some information about presenting below and think about all those experiences this year that might be interesting to other operators. For the EOF "Coordination Group". Daniel Karrenberg -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The EOF The European Operators Forum (EOF) exists for the exchange of Internet operations experience. It has evolved from the "information exchange" part of the early RIPE meetings to provide an open forum outside of the work programme of the working groups and the RIPE plenary. The EOF aims to attract presentations relevant to network operators, practical "hands-on" reports, outlines of future developments and small tutorials. Product marketing presentations are not appropriate, user experience reports are. The EOF programme is assembled by an informal coordination group that is always looking for new people who are able to help by attracting interesting presentations and supporting presenters. Contact: Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg(a)ripe.net> Presenting at the EOF The EOF wants to attract practical hands-on experience reports. We aim to make turning interesting experience into a presentation as easy as possible. Consider the following: - presentations do not have to be long Something interesting can be said in as little as 10 minutes. This limits the time spent to prepare material and often is a good way to start for first-timers. - support is available We will do our best to support you in preparing your presentation. If you want, we can help structuring your material, help to polish language and arrange for a test-run of your presentation. We can also try to arrange for someone from the same country or region to support you if that is helpful. We can also help you find someone else to present your material in case you cannot make it to the meeting. In short: If you have something intersting to say, we will help you do it! Contact Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg(a)ripe.net> for more information. - no product marketing presentations The EOF is *not* an appropriate forum for product marketing presentations. User experience reports which are presented by users are definitely relevant. In-depth technical presentations or tutorials are also possible. We expect to finalise the program in early August. We will get back to you then with scheduling details. In the meantime please provide the information below. We place special emphasis on the abstract which should contain references to related material already available if possible. Please send this to eof-coord at-sign ripe.net. - Author(s) - Speaker - (Working) Title - Abstract - Draft Presentation (if available) - Relation to other known work and/or presentations if known - Time Requested It would be helpful if the abstract was written such that potential attenders will learn what to expect from the presentation, i.e. "The presentation will describe our experiences with the Red Packet Washer (http://www.netdet.net/RPW/) We have been using the device for half a year now. It helps us deliver more hygienic datagrams to our customers and peers. We will discuss problems with packet discolouring as well as increased throughput to our upstreams due to decreased clogging by dirty micrograms. We will compare performance with the hand-scrubbing of packets which we used previously. Currently we are optimising device management and getting bugs resolved. We will strive to include the latest experiences in our report." is much better than "The presentation will describe the Red Packet Washer made by Network Detergents." More information about the meeting can be found at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/index.html Should you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me by e-mail at any time. During July and August my response time may be slightly longer than usual due to the holiday period. Thanks Daniel

2 1

Fw: Error in Document Ripe-192 (dns example)
by Fred 16 Jun '03

16 Jun '03

----- Original Message ----- From: Fred To: webmaster(a)ripe.net Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 9:18 AM Subject: Error in Document Ripe-192 (dns example) I set up a BIND-8 server per the example file, and found that the following creates errors: company.xy. SOA dns.company.xy. hostmaster.company.xy. ( 1998092900 ; Serial number 86400 ; Refresh 1 day 7200 ; Retry 2 hours 3600000 ; Expire 41.67 days 172800 ) ; Minimum TTL 2 days The closing bracket ")" should appear after the ; Minimum TTL 2 days. This error appears in several places in the document. Please forward this to the authors.

4 4