Re: [bitfolk] IP address at Nominet's nameservers is wrong

On Sun, February 12, 2012 12:06 am, Daniel Néri wrote: I don't believe such behaviour is particularly widespread, and hence I would be reluctant to rely upon it in practice. Indeed, RFC2182 is quite clear on the importance of having reachable DNS even if the referenced services are affected by the same issue(s) (e.g. if sat on the same box): ----- 3.3. A Myth Exploded An argument is occasionally made that there is no need for the domain name servers for a domain to be accessible if the hosts in the domain are unreachable. This argument is fallacious. + Clients react differently to inability to resolve than inability to connect, and reactions to the former are not always as desirable. + If the zone is resolvable yet the particular name is not, then a client can discard the transaction rather than retrying and creating undesirable load on the network. + While positive DNS results are usually cached, the lack of a result is not cached. Thus, unnecessary inability to resolve creates an undesirable load on the net. + All names in the zone may not resolve to addresses within the detached network. This becomes more likely over time. Thus a basic assumption of the myth often becomes untrue. It is important that there be nameservers able to be queried, available always, for all forward zones. ----- Mathew