On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 9:43 PM Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Nov 10, 2018, at 11:57 PM, Mukund Sivaraman <muks@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > digging around, I see curious behavior. > FWIW, given the apparently rather tight rate limits, if it were up to me, I'd > just operate the primary as a hidden master, with a sole purpose of providing > AXFR service to the slave servers. It is perhaps better to not list it at all, > than list a server that's going to be "aggressively" dropping packets. I agree. As soon as we get our access issues resolved, I'll remove NS0 when I update the other servers. > However, the operative word is "apparently"! It is quite possible that only > "DNSViz" and various synthetic probes run into issues, and that "normal" > resolvers are getting perfectly adequate service. That's the hope. > the process involves just a single step of running a robustly designed > and well-tested script that consistently performs all the requisite tasks. Definitely. > Good luck the ietf-tools and AMSL teams Thank you, Glen -- Glen Barney IT Director AMS (IETF Secretariat)
