North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Follow-up to "ROOT SERVERS"

  • From: Sean Donelan
  • Date: Fri Aug 25 15:20:34 2000

I'm confused again after reading Network Solutions press release.

The press release makes it sound like the problem was with the four
other root servers.  On the other hand the technical description sounds
like the original problem was with NSI's root-server.  NSI's server dropped
the COM zone from the root name file.  The other servers simply copied the
information provided by NSI's server to their servers, and are only cupable
so far as NSI's server provided a root zone file missing information.

Is this correct?

If the mistake was four independent root servers made the same mistake
at the same time, I'd like to know how.

Further the Network Solutions press release statesthe impact was negligible
because DNS resolvers look for multiple servers.  This is only partially
true.  DNS resolvers look for other servers only when a server is unavailable.
However, when a server has incorrect information, such as a root zone missing
a delegated zone, won't the other servers return NXDOMAIN which resolvers
will assume is an authoritative answer?  Therefore any user of those four
other servers would have received authoratative answers that .COM did not
exist?  How many queries do those four servers normally handle?

Is this correct?

I realize that press releases aren't intended to convey technical information,
and therefore it is important to release the technical information through
other channels.  But a press release should keep close to what happened.