On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:06:54PM +0800, Kevin C. wrote:
> Do you know which provider has a good anti-ddos systems and with a
> low price for bulk zones? I will suggest him switch to there.
No, this is something you can't offer right now. Geoff Huston's thinking on
this is instrumental:
http://l
Hello,
Sorry this subject may have no relations to DNS technology.
But one of our customers, who is a small registrar, has about 20,000
domains in our systems, increase slowly by day.
Due to frequent DDoS we have no capability to help him, but suggest him
move to another provider.
Do you know w
On 2015-06-10 13:06, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
On Jun 10, 2015, at 16:02 , Mark E. Jeftovic wrote:
It's happened to us (more than once) and it happened
to DNSimple not too long ago. In those cases we've had problems getting
the registrar to yank the delegation. In cases like that the registry
ofte
In message <86c6057b-8df9-41a6-af34-e9a55e9ed...@conundrum.com>, Matthew
Pounsett writes:
>
> > On Jun 10, 2015, at 16:02 , Mark E. Jeftovic wrote:
> >
> >> In the (very rare) case of my name servers receiving unwanted traffic
> in this way, I've treated it as an abuse issue. Report to abuse@ t
In message <557897d6.4010...@easydns.com>, "Mark E. Jeftovic" writes:
>
>
> Matthew Pounsett wrote:
> >> On Jun 9, 2015, at 23:35 , Dave Warren wrote:
> >> To me, the main problem isn't verifying the nameservers before
> delegation, but rather, the fact that an authoritative server cannot
> relia
> On Jun 10, 2015, at 16:02 , Mark E. Jeftovic wrote:
>
>> In the (very rare) case of my name servers receiving unwanted traffic in
>> this way, I’ve treated it as an abuse issue. Report to abuse@ the
>> organization that’s doing the delegation that they’re generating undated
>> traffic. So
Matthew Pounsett wrote:
>> On Jun 9, 2015, at 23:35 , Dave Warren wrote:
>> To me, the main problem isn't verifying the nameservers before delegation,
>> but rather, the fact that an authoritative server cannot reliably get
>> themselves removed once delegation is established. At most, an auth
> On Jun 9, 2015, at 23:35 , Dave Warren wrote:
> To me, the main problem isn't verifying the nameservers before delegation,
> but rather, the fact that an authoritative server cannot reliably get
> themselves removed once delegation is established. At most, an authoritative
> server operator
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:48 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> See http://ednscomp.isc.org/compliance/tld-typereport.txt and covers
> all tld servers.
Oh, cool...
What would be really helpful is a description (or link to a
description) of what the tests being performed are -- when it says:
google. @2
On 2015-06-09 18:09, Mark Andrews wrote:
If you want this to change behavior sue the registry and registrar
for not doing "due dilegence" before adding the NS record because
they are not going to pay attention any other way it seems. Contracts
can't save them as you, as a nameserver operator, a
On 6/9/15, 20:29, "Mark E. Jeftovic" wrote:
>But I don't see it happening.
(Caution - this all soapbox jibber-jabber:)
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/854398-trying-is-the-first-step-towards-fai
lure
“Trying is the first step towards failure” -- Homer Simpson
http://www.imdb.com/character/ch
Mark Andrews wrote:
Message: 7 Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:09:45 +1000 From: Mark Andrews
To: "Mark E. Jeftovic" Cc:
dns-operati...@dns-oarc.net Subject: Re: [dns-operations] Fwd: Re:
[Security] Glue or not glue? Message-ID:
<20150610010946.8a5e13046...@rock.dv.isc.org>
It exists "dig SOA zo
See http://ednscomp.isc.org/compliance/tld-typereport.txt and covers
all tld servers.
The report is several days old. A new report is being generated
and should be regenerated daily. A file system fault was causing
the server to panic and reboot while the report was being generated.
Some timeou
13 matches
Mail list logo
