Subject: RE: name server without root cache

From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 17:54:46 -0700

Jesper G. Hoy wrote:

Wrong thread for this but...

 >Looking specifically for the root servers in the response to determine
 >this situation (lame) could even be dangerous - imagine some server
 >using an "alternate root server list" - like Pacific Root and the
 >like...

Cross-root pollution is becoming common place. There are enough resolvers 
out there looking for obscure names to make a dent now.

 >From a programming standpoint it makes sense to return the root server
 >list because it's the simple thing to do - same logic as any other cache
 >lookup.
 >I suspect this is the only reason why most implementations do it.

What happens to a query when two separate root systems are returned - i.e. 
ns1.foo returns one root system and ns2.foo returns something else? Would 
the local cache (if any) take precedence or do both roots subsequently get 
queried?

Best Regards,

Simon

--
###

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>