North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: QWest is having some pretty nice DNS issues right now
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 [email protected] 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 216.220.40.243 NS2.easydns.com. 29449 A 209.200.151.4 remote1.easydns.com. 29434 A 209.200.131.4 remote2.easydns.com. 29428 A 205.210.42.20 CIDR: 205.210.42.0/24 NetName: SHMOOZE-NET prolexic/Prime Communications Ltd. DONBEST (NET-209-200-131-0-1) 209.200.131.0 - 209.200.131.255 NetRange: 216.220.32.0 - 216.220.63.255 CIDR: 216.220.32.0/19 NetName: Q9-NET1 NetRange: 209.200.128.0 - 209.200.191.255 CIDR: 209.200.128.0/18 NetName: PROLEXIC So, 4 ips, 3 ISP's 3 route objects... they seem to atleast follow some of the requirements. -Chris
|