DIG root.hints update failure

[Jim Reid]

>>>>> ">" == G Roderick Singleton <gsingleton at home.com> writes:

    >> There's probably no need to "update your root.hints file". That
    >> file hasn't changed in years. And if you have an out of date
    >> copy, the current version is available at:
    >> ftp:ftp.rs.internic.net/domain/named.root and no doubt at
    >> zillions of archive sites all over the net.

    >> I looked at the URL and found that the file is out-of-date, May
    >> 22, 1999.

Wrong. That's the date that the FTP server says the file was last
modified. This is not necessarily the same as the date the file's
contents were actually changed. If you read the comments in that file,
you would have seen the following comment:

	;       last update:    Aug 22, 1997
	;       related version of root zone:   1997082200

FWIW, the file I just FTP'ed from ftp.rs.internic.net is identical to
the one I installed on one of my name servers over 2 years ago. This
added [J-M].ROOT-SERVERS.NET to the version of the file from 1995.
That just added another 4 servers to the already existing 9 for other
name servers to query when they started up. Hardly an earth-shattering
change.

    >> It seems they have changed the root servers in the
    >> meantime resulting in error above.

If 198.41.0.6 ever was a root server, it must have been a *very* long
time ago. It wasn't even listed in the copy of root-servers.txt that
was given in the 1st edition of Cricket's book: published in 1992 BTW.

    >> dig is still a good way to update your named.ca only 

I thought that I'd already explained that it's usually irrelevant and
unnecessary to update that file. Name servers only use it start-up to
locate the root servers so as long as any one of the servers listed in
that file answers, all is well. And the servers listed in that file
are by definition (a) highly available; (b) spread all over the world
on different nets; (c) unlikely to go away or be renumbered.

It's also highly unlikely that the file will get changed any time
soon. First of all, adding more NS and A records for the root zone
will probably make the answers too big to fit in the current DNS UDP
payload of 512 bytes. That problem will go away when/if EDNS0 is
deployed everywhere. Secondly, adding new root name servers is fraught
wiith all sorts of political and logistical problems. So we have to
wait for ICANN, IANA, IETF, WTO and everyone else who has something to
say about this topic to reach a consensus and then implement it. Don't
hold your breath waiting.