Re: DNS Questions
From: Christopher Browne (cbbrowne_at_acm.org)
Date: 07/27/03
- Next message: Christopher Browne: "Re: DNS Questions"
- Previous message: Timothy Murphy: "Re-booting Windows machine from Linux box"
- In reply to: Bruno Wolff III: "Re: DNS Questions"
- Next in thread: Yannick Turgeon: "Re: DNS Questions"
- Reply: Yannick Turgeon: "Re: DNS Questions"
- Reply: Bruno Wolff III: "Re: DNS Questions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 26 Jul 2003 23:16:45 GMT
In the last exciting episode, Bruno Wolff III <bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
> In article <pan.2003.07.26.16.01.18.645234@nowhere.com>, Yannick Turgeon wrote:
>>
>> I didn't see the word "registrar" even once in the DNS-How-To. I
>> read it in french but its french equivalent was not there
>> neither. And I read it all, except for the introduction. So I
>> search Google a bit and add to my DNS knowledges which were very
>> limited 24 hours ago. The error I made concerning this registration
>> process was to change my primary DNS at my registrar BEFORE I setup
>> my DNS on my PC. This is when I changed it there that my registrar
>> send information to the TLDs. But I'm now wondering why it could
>> take 24/48 hours to a new domain to be seen from everywhere. I
>> mean, my registrar has immediatly sent my DNS info to the
>
> Because the old records have times associated with them saying how
> long it is OK to cache them. For SLD NS record information a day or
> two is a reasonable time.
Furthermore, the way the updates flow upstream to the root servers
may involve someone pulling updates in some sort of periodic batch
process once every day.
(I'll not name any names :-).)
Even if you can update your NS information virtually instantaneously,
from the perspective of registrant -> registrar -> registry, if it
takes a day for the root servers to get around to rummaging through
the data coming in from the registry, then it'll take some time.
>> Well, it didn't accept. I finaly let their own DNS as the second one but it
>> seems they didn't try if it worked... or maybe it was working [not
>> properly] because they are my registrar. Don't know.
>
> First off, for a home network having a backup DNS server outside
> your network isn't necessarily a good idea. When you lose
> connectivity having a working DNS server outside your network
> doesn't do you any good. Having a slave DNS server that isn't
> completely under your control introduces risks that your DNS could
> be messed up by the slave.
>
> However you can't just make your registry the secondary for your
> domain without making some sort of arrangement them so that they
> will actually publish the data.
Yeah, this is certainly a case where the handling of things will
differ a LOT between usage by people running little web servers on an
ADSL line versus an enterprise that has 50 servers under some domain
name...
>> But since my goal was simply to host my domain name, a really
>> better way would have been to ask my ISP to change his own DNS
>> configs to make my IP point to my domain and then put my ISP
>> primary and secondary DNS in my registrar's configuration. But I
>> wouldn't have learn that much. Maybe I'll do that too.
> That wouldn't work. While you ISP does control your reverse DNS,
> that won't do you much good.
>> Yes, I think I understand now. They pay for the right of adding
>> entries in the TLDs and then they are selling me the domain name. I
>> was seing them like a useless third party between me and the TLDs,
>> but in fact they own rights that I didn't get.
> More or less. They are mostly useless. They were added because of
> complaints about Network Solutions having a monopoly for the gTLDs
> and charging a lot of money for terrible service. While this did
> help, it would have been better to dumped Network Solutions and put
> a single nonprofit in charge of both maintaining the data and
> handling registrations.
You're assuming that the political process that would fall out of the
creation of that "single nonprofit" would represent a monopoly that's
better than what we have now.
The fact that there are many registrars (~120, for the major TLDs)
means that it is clearly neither a monopoly nor an oligopoly, and they
_do_ have to do some competing for customers. Any one, or even any 10
of them might be ludicrously incompetent, and while that would lead to
some inconvenience, it doesn't forcibly need to be disastrous.
If everything simply shifted from NSI to _Some NonProfit Registration
Organization_, the "problems" with NSI would more than likely be
expressed in the new organization. Worse still, the political
infighting would get expressed in fighting for control of _SNPRO_, and
it would be a simply vicious political environment.
>>> Does your DNS actually work? What is your domain name?
>> Yes! Now it's working: www.yturgeon.info (the homepage is blank so
>> don't wait for to much! :o)
> It isn't set up correctly. According to tld1.ultradns.net (one of
> the .info name servers) dns2.domainsatcost.ca is a name server for
> your domain. However when I ask dns2.domainsatcost.ca about
> yturgeon.info a referral to the root servers is returned. You want
> to remove the entry for dns2.domainsatcost.ca.
There's a problem with the idea of dropping that extra entry. If
there aren't two nameserver entries, yturgeon.info gets dropped out of
the zone, and won't resolve anymore. That would be a Bad Thing, no?
Alternatively, perhaps what needs to happen is for
dns2.domainsatcost.ca to be informed of the IP address that they
should report for yturgeon.info. That's a service that I think
registrars often offer. In any case, it's better to have one bogus
nameserver than to get dropped from the INFO zone...
-- select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'cbbrowne.com'; http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -Groucho Marx
- Next message: Christopher Browne: "Re: DNS Questions"
- Previous message: Timothy Murphy: "Re-booting Windows machine from Linux box"
- In reply to: Bruno Wolff III: "Re: DNS Questions"
- Next in thread: Yannick Turgeon: "Re: DNS Questions"
- Reply: Yannick Turgeon: "Re: DNS Questions"
- Reply: Bruno Wolff III: "Re: DNS Questions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
