Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net writes:
On 3/7/2014 5:03 AM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
for decades. i have a vague recollection of an rfc that said
secondary nameservers ought not be connected to the same psn (remember
those?) but my google fu fails me this early in the morning.
Packet
RFC 2182
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 02:57:06PM -0400, Rob Seastrom wrote:
Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net writes:
On 3/7/2014 5:03 AM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
for decades. i have a vague recollection of an rfc that said
secondary nameservers ought not be connected to the same psn
Thanks Bill. Clearly my Google-fu was failing because of plugging in
anachronistic terms when searching for a document that is only barely
old enough to drive.
-r
bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com writes:
RFC 2182
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 02:57:06PM -0400, Rob Seastrom wrote:
Larry
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 08:07:55AM -0500, Rob Seastrom wrote:
Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org writes:
haven't you heard about anycast??
rs probably has. The owner of 199.73.57.122, probably not.
indeed. there are many pieces of evidence that this is not an anycast
prefix. proof
bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com writes:
sorry for the poor attempt at humour...
it was ancient practice to hang many names (not cnames)
off a single IP address. all perfectly legal from a DNS POV.
rs.example.org. in a 10.10.10.53
nick.example.com. in a 10.10.10.53
On 3/7/2014 5:03 AM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
for decades. i have a vague recollection of an rfc that said
secondary nameservers ought not be connected to the same psn (remember
those?) but my google fu fails me this early in the morning.
Packet Switch Node?
Not sure what would be in this
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 07:52:10AM -0500, Rob Seastrom wrote:
Paul S. cont...@winterei.se writes:
For all it's worth, it might be Cox ignoring TTLs and enforcing their
own update times instead.
Wait 24-48 hours, and it should probably fix it all up.
Possibly.
I'm not seeing
On 06/03/2014 12:14, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 07:52:10AM -0500, Rob Seastrom wrote:
to secondary nameservers. Speaking of that...
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
ns1.nineplanetshosting.com. 172800 IN A 199.73.57.122
ns2.nineplanetshosting.com. 172800 IN
Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org writes:
haven't you heard about anycast??
rs probably has. The owner of 199.73.57.122, probably not.
indeed. there are many pieces of evidence that this is not an anycast
prefix. proof is left as an exercise to those who can perform
traceroutes from
OP is actually the owner of it as per ARIN whois data.
-- Paul
On 3/6/2014 午後 09:41, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 06/03/2014 12:14, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 07:52:10AM -0500, Rob Seastrom wrote:
to secondary nameservers. Speaking of that...
;; ADDITIONAL
Paul S. cont...@winterei.se writes:
For all it's worth, it might be Cox ignoring TTLs and enforcing their
own update times instead.
Wait 24-48 hours, and it should probably fix it all up.
Possibly.
I'm not seeing anything majorly broken with your system except the SOA
EXPIRE being
Thank you to the on and off lists replies. The DNS servers are not my
choice to have them that way. But I will mention that to my client.
It looks like Cox is now resolving things as it should be for this domain.
Sincerely,
Mark Keymer
CFO/COO
Vivio Technologies
On 3/5/2014 4:52 AM, Rob
Hi Everyone,
So I have a client who moved a domain specifically periodforgood.com to
a new VPS with our company.
DNS has been updated and the TTL time is 4 hours so things should all be
updated but something might still be wrong. Looking for help /
confirmation that things look good. And
For all it's worth, it might be Cox ignoring TTLs and enforcing their
own update times instead.
Wait 24-48 hours, and it should probably fix it all up.
I'm not seeing anything majorly broken with your system except the SOA
EXPIRE being ridiculously large.
On 3/5/2014 午後 01:40, Mark Keymer
14 matches
Mail list logo
