North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: NetSol screwing the pooch?
- From: Newell, Tom
- Date: Fri Apr 14 13:52:04 2000
if you would have looked at the NS set for COM (instead of
the NS set for .), you would have found that authoritive hosts
for COM are:
com. 6D IN NS A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
com. 6D IN NS G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
com. 6D IN NS F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.
com. 6D IN NS F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
com. 6D IN NS B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
com. 6D IN NS I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
com. 6D IN NS E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
com. 6D IN NS J.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.
com. 6D IN NS K.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.
com. 6D IN NS A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.
com. 6D IN NS H.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.
com. 6D IN NS C.GTLD-SERVERS.NET.
...and their serials are:
Server COM. Operator
a.root-servers.net 2000041301 NSI
g.root-servers.net 2000041301 DOD
f.gtld-servers.net 2000041301 NSI
f.root-servers.net 2000041301 ISC
b.root-servers.net No answer ISI
i.root-servers.net 2000041301 Sweden (Royal Inst of Tech)
e.root-servers.net 2000041300 NASA
j.gtld-servers.net 2000041301 NSI
k.gtld-servers.net 2000041301 NSI
a.gltd-servers.net 2000041301 NSI
h.gtld-servers.net 2000041301 NSI
c.gtld-servers.net 2000041301 NSI
So in every case where NSI operates the host NS for COM, you
should see that the serialization is correct. In those cases
where a traditional root server still serves COM, should
they get out of synch, our NOC contacts them to encourage
resolution. However, as the host is not an NS operated by NSI,
beyond encouraging them to fix the problem, there is little we
can do. This is part of the reason for moving COM off of the
traditional roots in just the same fashion as other first
level delegations are managed today.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Germann [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 9:34 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: NetSol screwing the pooch?
> In trying to track down why an old DNS server dies I found
> the following
> interesting stuff for the [a-i].root-servers.net over a
> two-hour sample
> period ...
> Server COM. .
> a 2000041300 2000041300
> b no answer no answer
> c no answer no answer
> d answer with ref 2000041300
> e 2000041300 2000041300
> f 2000041201 2000041300
> g 2000041101 2000041101
> h answer with ref 2000041101
> i 2000041300 2000041300
> So I thought the purpose of multiple DNS servers was to have
> mirroring for
> redundancy. Does anyone find 1-2 day lags in the updates
> acceptable? I'm
> glad NetSol is moving these to commercial grade data centers. :(
> The no answers are pingable but don't answer queries from
> here (over a two
> hour period). The answer with ref answered with referrals to other
> servers. I don't have the patience to recurse the whole mess of
> Any other observations other than NetSol has apparently
> screwed the pooch
> again ?
> Eric Germann Inacom
> Info Systems
> firstname.lastname@example.org Lima, OH 45801
> 419 331 9050
> ICQ: 41927048 Fax:
> 419 331 9302
> "It is so easy to miss pretty trivial solutions to problems deemed
> complicated. The goal of a scientist is to find an
> interesting problem,
> and live off it for a while. The goal of an engineer is to evade
> interesting problems :)" -- Vadim Antonov <email@example.com> on NANOG