At 5/5/02 12:55 PM, Lynn W. Taylor wrote: >That wasn't the problem: they didn't change the name. The IP changed, but >they didn't expect it to change. > >The real problem was, they changed software, and found the learning curve >to be steeper than expected. The server was broken for over a week while >they figured all of that out. > >It would have been better if the server had been "discontinued" but >something was up, the IP in the root was pointing to something, and the >answers that something gave were, ummm, less than optimal.
Ah, gotcha. Well, I'll certainly concede that bulk-updates of nameservers are, in fact, a valid solution if you're working with a company that thinks it's acceptable to have a nameserver give bogus responses for your live domains for over a week. Hopefully not a common problem, though. I'm guessing you don't trade DNS with them any more. I often wonder if I should just have some other company handle my secondary DNS instead of maintaining my own boxes in two different locations. You just convinced me it's worth every penny. -- Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies "The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was."
