- dns-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Reverse DNS
by Ulrich Wisser 13 May '26

13 May '26

Hello WG, I am looking into reverse delegation. I found RFC 2317 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2317 (aka BCP20). Is that really true? Does anyone use ”/” in their delegation names? <- Maybe someone who scans the whole tree could look into this? Does Ripe have a recommendation/BCP on reverse delegation (for non-octet boundaries)? Greetings from rainy Stockholm /Ulrich

6 7

Feedback requested on the selection process of new co-chairs
by Moritz Müller 12 May '26

12 May '26

Dear RIPE DNS-WG, During the previous selection process of a new co-chair (in the run-up to RIPE 91), some discussion sparked offline and online on whether the current process of selecting a co-chair for this working group is still adequate. The current process is described here [1]. We hereby invite the community to provide feedback on the current selection process. Note that the current selection for a new working group co-chair will not be affected by this discussion. Any potential changes to the selection process will only come into action after RIPE 92. You still have until Monday to express your support for the new co-chair. - Moritz Müller for the RIPE DNS working group co-chairs (Ulrich, Yevheniya and me) [1] https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/dns/dns-wg-chair-selection-process

9 13

Public ENUM article and RIPE 92 Services WG discussion
by Hisham Ibrahim 12 May '26

12 May '26

Dear colleagues, I wanted to share an article on the current operational status of Public ENUM under e164.arpa. The article is based on a 2026 operational review carried out by the RIPE NCC and looks at the status of current delegations and the questions this raises for the future support of Public ENUM. I plan to present this topic during the Services Working Group session at RIPE 92, where I hope we can discuss the findings and possible next steps with the community. Article: https://labs.ripe.net/author/hisham_ibrahim/operational-review-of-public-en… Best regards, Hisham

1 0

ripe-859 RIPE NCC Statement on RSSAC001v2 "Service Expectations of Root Servers Operators"
by Florian Obser 11 May '26

11 May '26

Dear colleagues, We have published ripe-859 which is our statement on RSSAC001v2 "Service Expectations of Root Servers Operators": https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-859/ In this document, you can read our statements corresponding to each of the service expectations for Root Server operators and how we comply with them for k.root-servers.net. Best regards, Florian Obser Principal Engineer, DNS

1 0

Agenda DNS-WG at Ripe92
by Ulrich Wisser 25 Apr '26

25 Apr '26

Dear working group, The preliminary agenda for our meeting at Ripe92 in Edinburgh is ready. 1. Welcome and announcement of the new co-chair 2. DNS, Transitive Trust and How Many is Many, Ondřej Surý 3. Black Holes and Prisoners: Understanding AS112 Deployment Characteristics, Elizabeth Boswell 4. DNS TAPIR POP – Managing Multiple RPZ Inputs, Lars-Johan Liman 5. Overdoing NSEC3 Hurts, Petr Špaček 6. RIPE NCC DNS Update, Florian Obser 7. (Time Permitting) Measuring Resilience of Recursive Resolvers, Maynard Koch A friendly reminder: We are still collecting expressions of support (or opposition) for the new working group co-chair from the mailing list until Monday, 18th May 2026. See you all in Edinburgh or online! Your chairs (Yevheniya, Moritz and Ulrich)

1 0

ENUM (e164.arpa): background, scope, and coordination steps
by Hisham Ibrahim 08 Apr '26

08 Apr '26

Dear colleagues, This message summarises recent discussion regarding ENUM (e164.arpa) and clarifies the scope and next steps. The RIPE NCC has operated the e164.arpa registry for many years under instructions and coordination arrangements established with the ITU-T and IAB. These arrangements, and the operational context for how the registry is run, are described here: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/dns/enum/iab-instructions/ Recently, a request was raised in the RIPE Database Working Group to support ENUM (e164.arpa) in RDAP for querying the RIPE Database. We noted that RDAP support for ENUM is not currently implemented, but could be added if there is clear interest. We also checked current query patterns and found a few hundred ENUM-related queries per day in DNS and in Database; so low usage, but not zero. Following discussion on the Database WG mailing list, including replies in support, we proposed implementing RDAP support for ENUM. While this is a limited operational change, it was recognised that anything touching E.164 and e164.arpa can raise political questions that go beyond the purely technical. As e164.arpa is directly linked to the ITU E.164 numbering system, the relevant points of contact are typically national administrations and the entities they designate. This led us to consult ITU-T Study Group 2 to clarify the status of ENUM and its usage and needs for ongoing support. ITU-T will ask member states for their feedback and share this with us. ITU-T provides an established and coordinated channel to reach those administrations, and importantly confirm whether any delegating authorities still rely on the service, so our technical decisions are informed by real-world use and help us avoid unnecessary operational risk, confusion, or compliance headaches (including in the context of regulatory frameworks such as NIS2). We are also reaching out to the IAB regarding these operations, which the RIPE NCC performs under its instruction on behalf of the global DNS and Internet community. I am sharing this message with the DNS, Database, Cooperation and RIPE NCC Services Working Group mailing lists to ensure all relevant working groups are informed. If you wish to share thoughts in response, please reply to the thread on the RIPE NCC Services WG mailing list. Best regards, Hisham Ibrahim Chief Community Officer, RIPE NCC

3 5

Co-chair selection: Collecting expressions of support now
by Moritz Müller 19 Mar '26

19 Mar '26

Dear colleagues, I am glad to announce that we have one candidate for the co-chair position that will become vacant at RIPE 92. We will now collect expressions of support (or opposition) from the mailing list until Monday, 18 May 2026, and will announce the results on Thursday, 21 May 2026 during the DNS working group session at the RIPE 92. Please also provide a short statement when expressing your support or opposition. Our candidate is: ***************************************** Name: Marc van der Wal Nominated by: self-nomination Statement by Marc: I would hereby like to nominate myself as a candidate for becoming a co-chair of the RIPE DNS working group. I’ve been working as an R&D engineer at Afnic for almost 4 years now, during which I’ve been involved with many different aspects of DNS operations: DNS testing tools such as Zonemaster or IBDNS, e-mail security with SPF, DKIM and DMARC, fighting abuse, and so on. As a regular RIPE attendee, I’ve been very happy with the way DNS working group sessions have been led during the past few years. I want to do more for the international community and, as a hypothetical co-chair, help keeping the high quality of those working group sessions. I am particularly sensitive to diversity, equality and inclusion as well. Although it would be a first experience in such a role, I am a fast learner, and I know I can count on input and support from fellow chairs, and from colleagues like Sandoche Balakrichenan who co-chaired the IoT working group. ***************************************** Best regards, Moritz, for the RIPE DNS working group co-chairs (Yevheniya, Ulrich and me)

3 2

DNS propagation inconsistencies across European resolvers — observations and data
by Vahid Shaik 09 Mar '26

09 Mar '26

Hi team, I've been investigating DNS propagation behavior across European resolvers and wanted to share some observations that might be useful to the group. When testing DNS record changes (particularly A, AAAA, and MX records) across resolvers in different RIPE member regions, I've noticed significant inconsistencies in how quickly changes propagate — even when TTLs are identical. Some examples: * Records with TTL 300 updated within 5 minutes on Cloudflare (1.1.1.1) and Google (8.8.8.8), but took 15-25 minutes on several ISP resolvers in DE, NL, and FR. * CNAME chains with 3+ levels caused noticeably slower propagation compared to direct A records, particularly on resolvers that don't support aggressive NSEC caching (RFC 8198). * Some ISP resolvers appear to enforce a minimum TTL floor (often 300-600s), overriding the authoritative server's lower TTL values. For anyone investigating similar behaviour, I've found it helpful to query the same record from multiple global locations simultaneously to identify which resolvers are lagging. We built a tool called DNS lookup<https://dnsrobot.net/dns-lookup> that does this at it queries from 20+ server locations in parallel and shows per-location results with response times. Has anyone else on the list observed ISP resolvers in the RIPE region enforcing minimum TTL values? RFC 8767 (Serving Stale Data) seems related, but I'm curious whether this is intentional policy or just aggressive caching implementations. Regards, Vahid

4 5

[RIPE 92] DNS WG: Call for presentations
by Yevheniya Nosyk 02 Mar '26

02 Mar '26

Dear colleagues, It might still seem far away, but RIPE 92 in Edinburgh is approaching. The RIPE 92 meeting will be held from 18th to 22nd May 2026. Our working group meeting is currently scheduled for 21st May at 11:00 am, but please note that this may still change. This e-mail is our first official call for topics for the DNS working group session. From RIPE 91 onwards, all plenary and working group proposals can be submitted through the same system, Pretalx. Please submit your proposals by 9 March 2026 using the following link: https://ripe92.ripe.net/present/call-for-presentations/. Alternatively, you may still send your proposals directly to us at <dns-wg-chairs AT ripe.net>. If using Pretalx, please pay special attention to the following fields: • Talk type: This field is not relevant to us. Select any option you like. Instead, make sure that you fill in the time you will need for your presentation, including Q&A, in the "Duration" field. • Track: Make sure that you select "DNS WG" • Duration: See "Talk type" above You can find more information on the Pretalx system here: https://ripe92.ripe.net/present/how-to-submit-a-proposal/ As usual, both in-person and remote participation in the working group is possible. We plan to send out the first round of notifications at the end of March 2026. Cheers, Yevheniya on behalf of the RIPE DNS Working Group co-chairs (Moritz, Ulrich and me) -- Yevheniya Nosyk, Ph.D. Cybersecurity Researcher https://korlabs.io

1 1

OARC 46 Call for Contribution
by Ulrich Wisser 21 Feb '26

21 Feb '26

Apologies for cross posting! The next DNS-OARC meeting will be in Edinburgh immediately before Ripe 92. Please consider participating and maybe even submit a talk. Kind regards /Ulrich This workshop will be a hybrid event. Date - 16-17 May 2026 Location - Edinburgh, Scotland Times - approximately 09:00-16:00 UTC (Local time BST is UTC +1 ) Adjacent to - RIPE 92 (18 - 22 May 2026, https://ripe92.ripe.net/) Deadline for Submissions - 2026-03-06 23:59 UTC https://indico.dns-oarc.net/event/56/abstracts/ All DNS-related subjects and discussion topics are welcome although we're particularly keen to hear more about operational and security related experiences, best practices and practical advice; both for newcomers to the DNS arena and those who have been around for longer who want to learn more about new features and opportunities to improve resilience, security and privacy. (These topics we think will complement the usual high-quality data-based research submissions we always hope to receive!) If you have something interesting to share with the community that lies outside of the focus above, please don't be put off - if it's good, we'll be happy to include it. If you'd like to offer a talk, but are not quite sure what to pick, here's a non-exhaustive list of ideas: 1. Operations & Deployment · Configuration management, deployment processes, and interoperability experiences. · Tools, tips, and making effective use of DNS software features. 2. Performance, Resilience & Scaling · Provisioning, load-balancing, and planning for resilience. · DNS performance management, efficiency improvements, and metrics. · Monitoring infrastructure: log pipelines, analytics, and anomaly detection. 3. Security, Privacy & Policy · DoS attacks, DNS abuse, DNSSEC signing and validation. · Privacy considerations, for example: encrypted transport, qname minimization, data anonymization. · Relevant global and regional policies, legislation, and compliance. 4. Research & Innovation · Data-driven testing, measurement, and analysis. · New protocols, protocol extensions, and next-generation namespace management. 5. Lessons & Learnings · Outage experiences, recovery stories, and cautionary tales For further details please see https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc46 ..., for the DNS-OARC Programme Committee

1 0