North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
RE: NetSol screwing the pooch?
Eric, 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. Tom > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Germann [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 9:34 PM > To: [email protected] > 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 > *.gtld-servers.net. > > Any other observations other than NetSol has apparently > screwed the pooch > again ? > > Eric > > > > > ============================================================== > ============ > Eric Germann Inacom > Info Systems > [email protected] Lima, OH 45801 > Ph: > 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 protected]> on NANOG >