On Aug 3 2009, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
At 03 Aug 2009 11:52:10 +0100,
Chris Thompson wrote:
will believe this answer (and cache it). This would only be proper
behaviour if the *.gtld-servers.net were slaving (possibly stealth slaving)
potomacnetworks.com - which of course they aren't, bu
At 03 Aug 2009 11:52:10 +0100,
Chris Thompson wrote:
> will believe this answer (and cache it). This would only be proper
> behaviour if the *.gtld-servers.net were slaving (possibly stealth slaving)
> potomacnetworks.com - which of course they aren't, but how is the poor
> recursive nameserver
On Aug 3 2009, Danny Mayer wrote:
Chris Thompson wrote:
[...]
You are misinterpreting what I said. Of course erroneous glue needs to be
corrected. But there is no need for the servers to return IP addresses
provided for glue as an *answer* to a query, as the *.gtld-servers.net ones
do, rather
Chris Thompson wrote:
> On Jul 30 2009, Danny Mayer wrote:
>
>> Chris Thompson wrote:
>>> On Jul 28 2009, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
>>>
% dig +short a dns3.potomacnetworks.com @a.gtld-servers.net
216.250.243.230
As long as that host record exists, with an IP different from what
On Jul 30 2009, Danny Mayer wrote:
Chris Thompson wrote:
On Jul 28 2009, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
% dig +short a dns3.potomacnetworks.com @a.gtld-servers.net
216.250.243.230
As long as that host record exists, with an IP different from what
your authoritative servers reply with, you are goin
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 09:05:44PM +0100,
Chris Thompson wrote
a message of 24 lines which said:
> This is the wretched "glue promoted to answer" bug (we can call it a
> bug by now, surely?) which we are assured that the GTLD servers will
> be cured of this year, next year, sometime, or ...
N
Chris Thompson wrote:
> On Jul 28 2009, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
>
>> % dig +short a dns3.potomacnetworks.com @a.gtld-servers.net
>> 216.250.243.230
>>
>> As long as that host record exists, with an IP different from what
>> your authoritative servers reply with, you are going to have problems,
>>
On Jul 28 2009, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
% dig +short a dns3.potomacnetworks.com @a.gtld-servers.net
216.250.243.230
As long as that host record exists, with an IP different from what
your authoritative servers reply with, you are going to have problems,
because queries will be answered by the
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:00 PM, wrote:
> > > Here's your 216.250.243.230 address:
> > >
> > > % whois dns3.potomacnetworks.com
> > >
> > > Whois Server Version 2.0
> > >
> > > Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
> > > with many different competing registrars. Go to
>
> > Here's your 216.250.243.230 address:
> >
> > % whois dns3.potomacnetworks.com
> >
> > Whois Server Version 2.0
> >
> > Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
> > with many different competing registrars. Go to
> > http://www.internic.net
> > for detailed information.
>
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:22 PM, wrote:
> > I recently migrated our old DNS servers to new hardware and BIND 9.6
> > installations. One domain is exhibiting some strangeness,
> > dns3.potomacnetworks.com. Our main DNS servers are authoritative for
> this
> > subdomain and it should point to 216.2
> I recently migrated our old DNS servers to new hardware and BIND 9.6
> installations. One domain is exhibiting some strangeness,
> dns3.potomacnetworks.com. Our main DNS servers are authoritative for this
> subdomain and it should point to 216.250.231.11, however, the whole world
> sees it pointi
Hi,
I recently migrated our old DNS servers to new hardware and BIND 9.6
installations. One domain is exhibiting some strangeness,
dns3.potomacnetworks.com. Our main DNS servers are authoritative for this
subdomain and it should point to 216.250.231.11, however, the whole world
sees it pointing to
13 matches
Mail list logo
