Network Solutions loses domain data -- Follow-up

Forrest W. Christian forrestc at
Wed Jul 14 09:31:07 UTC 1999

On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Daniel Senie wrote:

> wasn't a clueful person in the dozen or so I talked with. Indeed, most
> of them didn't understand the relationship between their databases and
> the root name servers (I think some of them didn't know what the root
> name servers were).

I just went through this with a client who's billing info is screwed up in
their record, and as a result wasn't getting a bill.   They paid, but the
record didn't update that evening (in other words go off of hold).

It took me four or five transfers to find someone who apparently could
talk to someone who could at least come up with a plausable answer of
"The domain was on hold and isn't now and it will be fixed in the next
update, tomorrow morning".   This was after talking to several people who
all said "The domain has never been on hold and we show it's active so
it's your problem".

I still don't know if anyone understood my various attempts at saying in a
non-technical fashion that "The record is apparrently not in".

- Forrest W. Christian (forrestc at KD7EHZ
iMach, Ltd., P.O. Box 5749, Helena, MT 59604
Solutions for your high-tech problems.                  (406)-442-6648

More information about the NANOG mailing list