All you need to do is change the IP of the namservers.  The root registry
controls the "glue" records for all the nameservers, so all your domains
will be automagically updated.

If the domain which the nameservers are based on are associated OpenSRS,
you can change the IPs via the Manage Domain Interface.  If the domain is
on another Registrar, you will have to use their nameserver update
utilities.  Either or, any domain using these nameservers should update -
if they don't, the Registrar the non-updated domains are on has made a
booboo and a nice complaint should get the problem solved.

OpenSRS honours the Root Registry when it comes to IPs :)

Charles Daminato
TUCOWS Product Manager (ccTLDs)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Mark Hazlewood wrote:

> Greetings, I'm sure I read this on the list months ago, however I can't 
> seem to find it in the archives...
> 
> I'm soon going to be renumbering our primary and secondary name servers 
> (the server NAMES are staying the same, but the IP's are changing) as such 
> I have roughly 200+ domains that need to change, when we where with (ick) 
> NetSol, we simply put in a "host modification" and the changes cascaded to 
> the individual domains, since OpenSRS isn't using a handle based system, 
> how do I go about doing this?
> (note: I'm not trying to start a war like the last one on handle based systems)
> 
> I have modify access to a good portion of the domains, however there are 
> some others that I don't have the password for, some clients choose not to 
> have us control their records, and that's fine by us, others would rather 
> we handle everything for them, and that's ok too.
> 
> now... I could go into a whack of names, and make the name server changes 
> one at a time however this would take MANY hours :(  Then notifying the 
> other customers who we cant modify directly would take months to get in 
> touch with some of them...
> 
> Do I even need to worry about the IP's as long as the host name is staying 
> the same?
> 
> any suggestions?
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 

Reply via email to