On Sun, Oct 17, 1999 at 01:47:50AM +1300, Alan Brown wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 1999, Joe Abley wrote:
Lame servers are logged when a zone has an NS
at a nameserver which is not authoritative for the zone.
In this case, there are no NS records pointing to the nameservers
which carry the slave zones. Why would lame server warnings result?
If you're downstream of a lame server, you're likley to get the warning.
I can't think of a scenario where this would be true. If this is
something you have seen, can you describe the setup in more detail?
What exactly do you mean by "downstream of a lame server"?
Lame delegations result when a zone contains an NS record to a
nameserver which, when queried, turns out not to be authoritative.
In this case there are _no_ NS records pointing at the nameserver
which is performing the zone transfer. If there were, there is still
a good chance that no lame delegation warnings would result, since
the nameserver _would_ have authoritative data.
[isocnz-l removed from cc: list]
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads: