[enum-wg] 9.3.e164.arpa down

Jim Reid schrieb:
>
> I also encouraged Michael to do two things. One was to submit a
> draft/paper to this WG on good DNS practices. If the WG picks up on
> that -- ie they get something to actually work on -- there's then a
> "standard" for Tier-1 operators and bureaucrats to follow. Next, if
> there's something that needs to be done to make SIP servers more
> robust to lame delegation errors, these should be written up too. That
> piece of work may be out of scope for the RIPE ENUM WG. Though this is
> for the WG to decide.
>

I dont think I need to write a paper on good DNS practice because of
that incident. The errors made in the case in question do not require that.

I will, however, have work done on those ENUM resolvers we contribute to
to have a blacklist mechanism for such "operators".

All I want I demand that current best practice be obeyed on delegations,
such that the following setup cannot happen:

sil1:~# host -t ns 9.3.e164.arpa.
9.3.e164.arpa name server dns.istsupcti.it.
9.3.e164.arpa name server dns2.istsupcti.it.

sil1:~# host  dns.istsupcti.it.
dns.istsupcti.it has address 62.101.92.173

sil1:~# host  dns2.istsupcti.it.
dns2.istsupcti.it has address 62.101.92.174

Do you note two adjacent IP adresses here? Janitor trips over wire,
country gone - superb. And we are falling over here in political
correctness,

Get real, guys - dont tell me we cant do anything here, it's always been
this way and we might be rocking some boat.

We need to tell these guys to get a life, network diversity and some
clue before having a delegation, and be done. You dont want the heat,
you dont go into the kitchen.

-Michael