Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?

Thu Mar 29 00:25:21 UTC 2012

On Mar 28, 2012, at 3:13 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo <carlosm3011 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not convinced. What you mention is real, but the code they need is
> little more than a regular expression that can be found on Google and a
> 20-line script for testing lames. And a couple of weeks of testing, and
> I think I'm exaggerating.
> 
> If they don't want to offer support for it, they can just put up some
> disclaimer.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Carlos
> 

I absolutely agree with Carlos here this has got to be a joke or likelihood of NETSOL being extremely lazy on their part possibly lack of demand? There is absolutely no valid reason an update like this shouldn't be trivial to implement unless their system was built by IBM contractors :-)

The core functionality of any IP/DNS management system is the flexibility and robustness to quickly add and remove address records. No matter how bad the system was designed or implemented not being able to support new record types is a complete FAIL on all counts especially from a veteran registrar like NETSOL.

Like others have stated stick it where it hurts the most and use another vendor.

> 
> On 3/28/12 3:55 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>> On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
>>> I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but, c'mon. For a provisioning
>>> system, an AAAA record is just a fragging string, just like any other
>>> DNS record. How difficult to support can it be ?
>> 
>> Of course it is more than a string. It requires touching code, (hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc. Presumably Netsol did the cost/benefit analysis and decided the potential increase in revenue generated by the vast hordes of people demanding IPv6 (or the potential lost in revenue as the vast hordes transfer away) didn't justify the expense. Simple business decision.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> -drc
>> 
>> 
> 