Maintained by: NLnet Labs

[Unbound-users] unbound and

Peter Koch
Thu Jun 26 15:23:34 CEST 2008

On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 09:21:26AM -0400, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:

> This server does not even have the SOA or NS that are required to exist
> at the top of a zone it only answers query for A correctly.

this server also doesn't use DNS compression, doesn't understand ANY,
and, and, ...

> IMHO it is wrong to a fix in resolver for such badly behaving
> load balancer.

Re-read the last paragraph of the original post and join me on the
theatre's balcony.

> Please do not do it, tell people to report the error to the site
> and instruct them to report the equipment they has a broken DNS
> server.

Well, BIND made the change a while ago ...

1880.   [func]          The lame cache is now done on a <qname,qclass,qtype>
                        basis as some servers only appear to be lame for
                        certain query types.  [RT #14916]

in spite of being a widely used resolver implementation.  Now, how should
Unbound choose between following the spec(*) or the leading implementation?

(*) I'm also not sure that the specs actually encourage, even less dictate,
a lameness memory. From the perspective of a name server operator who
occasionally receives lame delegations, I'd of course appreciate a less
exhaustive resolver behaviour.