North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: QWest is having some pretty nice DNS issues right now
- From: Christopher L. Morrow
- Date: Mon Jan 09 13:20:34 2006
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 email@example.com wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 05:30:12PM +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Simon Waters wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday 07 Jan 2006 02:54, you wrote:
> > > >
> > > > While it's tempting to make fun of Qwest here, variations on this theme -
> > >
> > > I do agree the management issue with DNS are far harder, and here longer TTL
> > > are a double edged sword. But it is hard to design a system where the
> > > mistakes don't propagate to every DNS server, although some of the common
> > > tools do make it easier to check things are okay before updates are unleased.
> > What's interesting to me, atleast, is that this is about the 5th time
> > someone has said similar things in the last 6 months: "DNS is harder than
> > I thought it was" (or something along that line...)
> > So, do most folks think:
> > 1) get domain-name
> > 2) get 2 machines for DNS servers
> > 3) put ips in TLD system and roll!
> > It seems like maybe that is all too common. Are the 'best practices'
> > documented for Authoritative DNS somewhere central? Are they just not well
> > publicized? Do registrars offer this information for end-users/clients? Do
> > they show how their hosted solutions are better/works/in-compliance-with
> > these best practices? (worldnic comes to mind)
> > Should this perhaps be better documented and presented at a future NANOG
> > meeting? (and thus placed online in presentation format)
> > -Chris
> IETF tech transfer failure... see RFC 2870 (mislabled as
> root-server) for TLD zone machine best practices from several
> years ago... for even older guidelines ... RFC 1219.
Perhaps this falls under: "better documented" or "easy to find" or "not
publicized" ? I'd be interested to see how many DNS hosting providers
actually follow these themselves. Take EasyDNS for example (since they are
on my mind, due to their GOOD service actually):
easydns.com. 3600 NS ns1.easydns.com.
easydns.com. 3600 NS ns2.easydns.com.
easydns.com. 3600 NS remote1.easydns.com.
easydns.com. 3600 NS remote2.easydns.com.
NS1.easydns.com. 3600 A 184.108.40.206
NS2.easydns.com. 29449 A 220.127.116.11
remote1.easydns.com. 29434 A 18.104.22.168
remote2.easydns.com. 29428 A 22.214.171.124
prolexic/Prime Communications Ltd. DONBEST (NET-209-200-131-0-1)
126.96.36.199 - 188.8.131.52
NetRange: 184.108.40.206 - 220.127.116.11
NetRange: 18.104.22.168 - 22.214.171.124
So, 4 ips, 3 ISP's 3 route objects... they seem to atleast follow some of