Hello,
With Godaddy we can register a nameserver with multi-ips.
For example,
$ dig nsbeta.info @c0.info.afilias-nst.info
; <<>> DiG 9.6.1-P2 <<>> nsbeta.info @c0.info.afilias-nst.info
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 29457
;; flags: qr
On 2012-07-19 5:12 PM, wbr...@e1b.org wrote:
>> ... Using DLV and staying with NetSol merely reaffirms their
>> de-prioritization of DNSSEC.
> If I can overcome the inertia to do so I will. I just need to find a
> good, lower cost US based registrar to use for the work related domains.
> My pe
> From: James M Galvin
> ...
> For the remaining 20% I'll assert that they are technically competent,
> which means if they have fat finger issues, well, we've all had those
> problems. You get what you deserve and pay for. What I mean is, these
> folks will either be doing their DNS themsel
-- On July 19, 2012 12:27:42 PM -0400 Andrew Sullivan
wrote regarding Re: [dns-operations] thoughts
on DNSSEC --
> In other words, the probability of a problem for the 20% is much
> lower than the probability of a problem for the 80%. And it is the
> problems in the 20% that will be most
David Conrad wrote on 07/19/2012 12:55:59 PM:
> IMHO, I think this sends the wrong message. One of the highest
> bandwidth signals a for profit companies can receive is money
> walking away. Enough money walks away and priorities will get
> shifted. Using DLV and staying with NetSol merely re
James M Galvin wrote on 07/19/2012 12:03:22 PM:
> I have evolved to what I consider a more practical view of this issue
> over the years. I'm certainly open to reconsideration but here's what
> I think today in one sentence: as a practical matter this is not a
> significant problem.
True, bu
On 7/19/2012 4:55 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2012, at 7:25 AM, wbr...@e1b.org wrote:
>> And in order to pass OT&E testing, NetSol's client application must pass
>> muster. So they must be able to handle DNSSEC. Maybe I should give up
>> tilting at this windmill and live with DLV for n
On Jul 19, 2012, at 7:25 AM, wbr...@e1b.org wrote:
> And in order to pass OT&E testing, NetSol's client application must pass
> muster. So they must be able to handle DNSSEC. Maybe I should give up
> tilting at this windmill and live with DLV for now.
IMHO, I think this sends the wrong messa
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:03:22PM -0400, James M Galvin wrote:
> For the remaining 20% I'll assert that they are technically
> competent, which means if they have fat finger issues, well, we've
> all had those problems. You get what you deserve and pay for. What
> I mean is, these folks will ei
I have evolved to what I consider a more practical view of this issue
over the years. I'm certainly open to reconsideration but here's what
I think today in one sentence: as a practical matter this is not a
significant problem.
I absolutely believe we have a major gaping hole technically, so
On 19 Jul 2012, at 15:25,
wrote:
> James M Galvin wrote on 07/19/2012 09:58:25 AM:
>
>> A registrar who has passed OT&E for DNSSEC will have a "Yes" indicator
>> below. This does not indicate whether the registrar has enabled a
>> DNSSEC service for the registrants. Please contact the regi
James M Galvin wrote on 07/19/2012 09:58:25 AM:
> A registrar who has passed OT&E for DNSSEC will have a "Yes" indicator
> below. This does not indicate whether the registrar has enabled a
> DNSSEC service for the registrants. Please contact the registrars
> directly for their DNSSEC service.
-- On July 19, 2012 8:29:34 AM -0400 wbr...@e1b.org wrote regarding Re:
[dns-operations] thoughts on DNSSEC --
PIR.org has a list a list for .org at
http://www.pir.org/get/registrars but it incorrectly lists NetSol as
supporting DNSSEC.
NetSol is correctly listed. From the PIR page you r
Ondřej Surý dns-operations-boun...@lists.dns-oarc.net
wrote on 07/19/2012 05:29:47 AM:
> On 19. 7. 2012, at 10:08, Alexander Mayrhofer
> wrote:
>
> > Speaking for .at, we do have a web based directory of our
> accredited registrars which supports narrowing searches to "DNSSEC
> enabled" reg
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 08:46:38PM +0200, Jan-Piet Mens wrote:
> He or she may have the bright idea of checking at the TLD. A really
> marvelous example is to be seen [1] at DENIC, responsible for .DE:
>
> Q: "How do I find a provider that supports DNSSEC?"
> A: "Please contact your domain provid
On 19. 7. 2012, at 10:08, Alexander Mayrhofer
wrote:
>> How does a prospective customer check a registrar's interface without doing
>> something approaching reality like registering a throw-away name?
>> The costs in time and hassles of that are a barrier.
>
> Speaking for .at, we do have a we
> How does a prospective customer check a registrar's interface without doing
> something approaching reality like registering a throw-away name?
> The costs in time and hassles of that are a barrier.
Speaking for .at, we do have a web based directory of our accredited registrars
which supports n
17 matches
Mail list logo
