bad answers from BIND9 ?

[Miroslaw Luc]

On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Kevin Darcy wrote:

> > is it ok? shoudn't BIND9 do an answer in ANSWER section, not in
> > AUTHORITY ?

> What ns.ripe.net returned to you was a *referral*, not an answer. See
> section 4.3.1 of the same RFC, bearing in mind that ns.ripe.net does
> not support recursion. This has nothing to do with the version of BIND
You are right, but...
I hope the examples below can clarify what we mean. Is bind8's answer
a referral? It is not. Here are two questions (hm, answers) about ns
records (with recursion disabled):

bind9
<------------------------------------------------------------------------->
; <<>> DiG 8.1 <<>> @ns.ripe.net a.pl. ns +norecurse
; (1 server found)
;; res options: init defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 10
;; flags: qr; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2
                                ^             ^
;; QUERY SECTION:
;;      a.pl, type = NS, class = IN
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
a.pl.                   1D IN NS        ns1.nss.pl.
a.pl.                   1D IN NS        ns2.nss.pl.
<------------------------------------------------------------------------->

bind8
<------------------------------------------------------------------------->
; <<>> DiG 8.1 <<>> @dns.nask.pl a.pl. ns +norecurse
; (2 servers found)
;; res options: init defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 10
;; flags: qr; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 2
                                ^             ^
;; QUERY SECTION:
;;      a.pl, type = NS, class = IN
;; ANSWER SECTION:
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
a.pl.                   1D IN NS        ns2.nss.pl.
a.pl.                   1D IN NS        ns1.nss.pl.
<------------------------------------------------------------------------->


-Mirek