|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: VeriSign's rapid DNS updates in .com/.net
Hmm... May be, you are correct - if you sell service to the 'consumers' (inexperienced customers), they do not expect any delays between 'payment completed' and 'I can see my brand new domain WWW.HOW-COOL-I-AM.COM. And TTL's/caches do not prevent you from this, because you did not requested this domain before. This is still just Public relation, but very useful, I agree. PS. I know about other operator, I just wanted to verify, who appreciate this improvement - I agree that it is good for average consumer market (I want to show my new WEB to my friends NOW, while I am on weekend downloading my photos, and I do not want to know about 24h, IP hops, DNS cliens, TTLs and so on ... ). One more step in making Internet the same 'simple to use' reality as houses, cars, TV.... > > > On Jul 10, 2004, at 1:19 PM, Alexei Roudnev wrote: > > > > > It is cool, but where is any value in this (I mean - 5 minutes) rapid > > updates for .com and other base domains? I wish rapid DNS when running > > enterprise zone (with dynamic updates) or when running dynamic-dns > > service > > (for those who use dynalic IP's); but for .com and .net, it is just a > > public > > relation useless feature - registration time is 1 year, 5 minutes vs > > 1/2 > > day - do not makes any difference. > > It makes a big difference to people who sell web/mail/etc services to > people that includes the domain name. > > It means that someone who pays for a new website through an automated > system doesn't have to wait 12-24 hours for it to be live, just a few > minutes. > > It also means that changes can be made to host records quickly which is > important for people who don't plan well or have unexpected changes > that they want propagated. > > I'm appreciative of this change -- but fyi, they aren't the only TLD > operators doing this, there are quite a few doing near-instant changes > to their respective zones. > > The only thing I would still want would be the ability to create > multiple host records of the same name but with various values. At > least the opposite, mutliple host names to the same value is now > allowed. That's good enough for me. :) > > -davidu >
|