|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Follow-up to "ROOT SERVERS"
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.
|