[rpd] New Proposal: Lame delegations in AFRINIC reverse DNS

Thu Apr 13 12:13:24 UTC 2017

Hi,

As long as it is guaranteed to be 100% automated, so that once implemented
it does not take any operational manpower from AFRINIC staff in tracking,
notifying and updating, I am in support.

It would ensure cleaner operational data in the AFRINIC database and remove
unmaintained useless entries.

How would the historical information be provided?
Would making deleted domain object visible through the whois query
"--show-version " be an option?

Cheers,
David

David Hilario

*IP Manager*

*Larus Cloud Service Limited*

p: +852 29888918 <+852%202988%208918>  m: +359 89 764 1784
<+359%2089%20764%201784>
f: +852 29888068 <+852%202988%208068>
a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR
w: laruscloudservice.net/uk
e: d.hilario at outsideheaven.com

On 13 April 2017 at 12:58, Ernest <ernest at afrinic.net> wrote:

> A new policy proposal updating Sec 10 of the Consolidated Policy Manual
> (Reverse Delegation) has been received as follows, and is now open for
> discussions:
>
> URL: https://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/
> policy-proposals/2067-lame-delegations-in-afrinic-reverse-dns
>
>
> ===============================================
>
> Policy Proposal: Lame delegations in AFRINIC reverse DNS
>
>
> ID :AFPUB-2017-DNS-001-DRAFT-01
> Submission Date: 11/04/2017
> Version: 1.0
> Author(s):
> •    D. Shaw [daniel at afrinic.net]
> •    A. Phokeer [amreesh at afrinic.net]
> •    N. Goburdhan [nishal at pch.net]
> •    J. Engelbrecht [jaco at jacoengelbrecht.eu]
>
>
>
> 1. Summary of the problem being addressed by this proposal
>
>
> 1.1.  Background: What is "Lame Delegation"?
>
> In the DNS, a lame delegation is a type of DNS misconfiguration error that
> occurs when a nameserver that is designated as an authoritative server for
> a domain name, does not return authoritative data for that name, when
> queried.  For example, if a nameserver is delegated the responsibility for
> providing a name service for a zone (via NS records) and it is not actually
> doing it, i.e. the nameserver is neither set up as a primary nor secondary
> server, or is unresponsive, then the NS record is considered to be 'lame'.
> (RFC1912 [2]).
>
> 1.2.  Impact of Lame Delegations in the Global DNS
>
> In the in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa zones, as applicable to this policy, the
> DNS records considered are NS records (as in the example above), delegating
> authority further down the chain of authority.  With such a delegation
> resulting in lame responses, the most obvious issue is complete failure for
> the specific .ARPA sub-zone that is being delegated to.  This is similar to
> not having any delegation in place at all: The sub-set of .ARPA records
> cannot be found, and so reverse DNS lookups will fail for that set of IP
> address resources.  With no delegation in place, the failure is immediate
> and final.  The querying client for a particular zone will get a negative
> response from the parent zone's nameserver, and do no further lookups.
>
> But comparing to a lame delegation, the client receives a referral to the
> lame (and invalid or broken) nameserver(s).  It then has to look them up by
> name before then querying one or more for the originally requested record.
> If the first nameserver in the set fails, the client may try the remainder,
> one by one if all are lame.
>
> In some cases the lameness is a result of non-authority or missing
> records, but in others the lame nameserver is non-existent or
> unresponsive.  In these cases, the client also has to wait for the request
> to time-out before trying the alternate NS, or failing completely.
>
> In summary, lame nameserver delegations as compared to no delegation
> result in additional DNS traffic and a far greater time to respond for the
> client, with the same practical end outcome.  In addition, the higher level
> parent zones that contain these useless and effectively invalid NS records
> are unnecessarily larger then needed. There is also a potential impact on
> any statistical data drawn from the parent zone(s).
>
>
> 2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem
>
>
> 2.1.  Summary
>
> This policy lays out a process to monitor nameserver records responsible
> for lame delegations, and a phased approach to removing these records from
> the DNS.
>
> 2.2.  Scope of the Policy
>
> This policy is intended to apply only to the DNS zones under in-addr.arpa
> and ip6.arpa managed by AFRINIC.  Checks should be done for every single NS
> record as sourced from "domain" objects in the AFRINIC WHOIS database.
>
> More specifically, this policy is only applicable to reverse DNS
> delegations managed within the AFRINIC region for AFRINIC majority RIR IP
> allocations and assignments.
>
> This policy should not monitor or consider reverse DNS delegations for
> minority RIR IP address resources or legacy IP address resources.
>
>
> 3. Proposal
>
>
> 3.1.  Process Detail
>
> The following text will be added into the Consolidated Policy Manual:
>
> .............................................
> 10.7 Process for Lame Delegations
>
> 10.7.1 Monitoring / Checking
>
> All "domain" objects in the AFRINIC WHOIS database must be periodically
> examined, and all "nserver" attributes extracted for checking. Each
> "nserver" found must be checked to:
>
> •    Respond to DNS queries.
> •    Reply with a valid SOA record for the associated domain with in the
> WHOIS database.
>
> This periodic checking should be automated.  The checks should be
> relatively frequent, but not so frequent as to cause any operational impact
> to either AFRINIC systems or the global DNS. If a nameserver fails a check
> for the first time, this is initially just recorded.  Only after failing
> multiple lameness checks, should a nameserver be flagged for further action.
>
> 10.7.2 Notification
>
> After one or more nameservers are flagged as lame, a reasonable attempt
> must be made to contact the person(s) responsible for the "domain" object
> and the DNS delegation.
>
> All of the "admin-c", "tech-c" and "zone-c" contacts should be tried in
> parallel.
>
> In addition, contact information may be extracted from associated "org"
> and/or "mnt-by" attributes when appropriate.
>
> Unanswered notification communications should also be re-tried more than
> once before moving on to further actions.
>
> The communication frequency, communication method(s) and number of
> attempts should be standardised and publicly documented.
>
> 10.7.3 Delegation Removal
>
> Once a given nameserver had been determined to be lame for a given DNS
> "domain", and reasonable attempts have been made to contact a responsible
> person, the nameserver must then be removed from the given DNS "domain".
>
> The nameserver must not be removed from all WHOIS objects and DNS zones,
> as it may not be uniformly lame for other zones it serves.
>
> Only those nameservers flagged as lame should be removed from a given
> domain.  The domain must not have all "nserver" attributes removed.
>
> These removals should be automated.  An optional "remarks" line may be
> added to the "domain" record in the database.
>
> Should a given domain have all it's nameserver's identified as lame, and
> thus removed, it must then also be removed from the database, due to the
> "nserver" attribute being mandatory for "domain" objects.
>
> Historical information about removed nameservers and domain objects should
> be archived for a reasonable amount of time and made available to the
> member for informational purpose.
>
> 10.7.4 Re-instatement
>
> Once nameservers are fixed, or alternate nameservers are available for a
> given reverse DNS zone, the responsible person(s) would add delegation to
> them in the same way as a new delegation is done for a new IP assignment or
> allocation.
> .............................................
>
>
>
> 3.2 Possible Operational Impact(s)
>
> A DNS delegation of a child-zone by lame NS records in the parent-zone
> will result in partial or complete failure of the child-zone.
>
> Therefore, removing these lame records at the parent will have no further
> adverse effects on the child zone.
>
> In the case of partial lameness, where not all nameservers are found to be
> lame, the impact will be positive: The removal of failing delegations will
> result in no DNS failures, rather than partial.
>
>
> 3.3 Sample Implementation Operations Guideline
>
> The authors are aware that there would be significant work to be done to
> implement this policy.  They have worked on a guideline for implementation,
> should the policy be passed.
>
> A sample operational manual is available online [9] as a guideline to
> AFRINIC staff to use.  Input and text, is welcome, but please note that
> this is a sample for implementation and not part of the policy.
>
>
> 4. Revision History
>
>
> 2017-03-15: First draft
>
>
> 5. References
>
>
> 5.1 Similar policies in other regions
>
> •    ARIN: Policy 2002-1: Lame Delegations in IN-ADDR.ARPA [4]
> •    APNIC: prop-038: Amending APNIC's lame DNS reverse delegation policy
> [5]
> •    LACNIC: Lame Delegation Policy within the Region Covered by LACNIC [6]
> •    RIPE NCC: No known policy at this time.
>
>
> 5.2 DNS misconfiguration studies
>
> •    Lame delegation in the AFRINIC database: How lame are our reverse
> delegations? [7]
> •    DNS Misconfiguration errors: Impact of Configuration Errors on DNS
> Robustness [8]
>
>
> 5.3 URI’s
>
> [1]    https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> [2]    https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1912.txt
> [3]    https://www.afrinic.net/library/corporate-documents/
> 216-how-to-request-reverse-delegation-in-afrinic-region
> [4]    https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2002_1.html
> [5]    https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-038/
> [6]    http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/lacnic/manual-6
> [7]    http://afrinic.net/blog/165-how-lame-are-our-reverse-delegations
> [8]    http://web.cs.ucla.edu/~lixia/papers/09DNSConfig.pdf
> [9]    https://raw.githubusercontent.com/techdad/afpub-2017-lame-
> dns/master/sample-implementation/afpub-2017-lame-dns-sample-ops-manual-
> draft-00.txt
>
> 5.4 Glossary
>
> •    DNS: Domain Name System
> •    RIR: Regional Internet Registry
> •    Majority RIR: Holds the parent allocation from IANA.
> •    Minority RIR: Administrates space within the majority allocation.
> •    Legacy Internet Resources: Internet number resources obtained prior
> to or otherwise outside the current hierarchical Internet registry system.
> •    SOA record: "Start Of Authority" record, at the head of every DNS
> zone.
>
> ===============================================
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20170413/67aef796/attachment-0001.html>