DNS Resolving issues. So for related just to Cox. But could be larger.

bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Thu Mar 6 12:14:14 UTC 2014


On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 07:52:10AM -0500, Rob Seastrom wrote:
> 
> "Paul S." <contact at 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 ridiculously large.
> 
> Nowhere even close to ridiculously large.  3600000 (10000 hours, 41
> days) is the historical example value in RFC 1035.  It's a bit larger
> than current recommended practices (2-4 weeks) but I wouldn't fault
> anyone for using that value nor would I expect any nameserver software
> to malfunction when confronted it.  Besides, that value only matters
> to secondary nameservers.  Speaking of that...
> 
> ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
> ns1.nineplanetshosting.com. 172800 IN   A       199.73.57.122
> ns2.nineplanetshosting.com. 172800 IN   A       199.73.57.122
> 
> I think OP ought to approach his hoster with a cluebat.  Not just on
> the same subnet but the same address?  Really.
> 
> -r
> 

	haven't you heard about "anycast"??


/bill



More information about the NANOG mailing list