> > And most of the domains never have working name servers at all. The
> > internic rules say you're supposed to have name service first. This
> > isn't always practical, but if speculative domains don't have DNS within
> > a few days, I'd think that'd be enough to wipe the allocations.
> So many people keep harping on the point of having name servers first.
> But that's a silly and moot point. The name servers may well be behind
> a firewall and the use of the domain name is intended for internal use
> and needs to be registered externally for the same reason one should use
> allocated address space from ARIN instead of picking random addresses.
If you are behind a firewall, you can use RFC 1918 addresses. You don't
need addresses from ARIN, and you don't need to pick at random.
<insert well known arguments against private addresses here>
Relaxing the requirements for name servers seems like an excellent way
of making the DNS even more broken than it already is. A number of TLDs
(.no being one of them) will *enforce* a minimum of two functioning name
servers for each domain. If you don't like this, you can of course take
your business elsewhere.
As do more than a couple of million .com domains.
> This is like telling people they have to be routed on the Internet to be
> able to get an address allocation.
Sure. Why should they be allocated global addresses when RFC 1918 is
There are many reasons. It's all been said before, but if you'd like to
have real life examples, reply in private as I don't want to rehash all
that on the list. It's bad enough that _this_ thread is even going on
at all (should be moved over to some domain list).