nanog mailing list archives
Re: QUICKER FIX Re: [fjk].gtld-servers.net bogus for .com
From: Paul A Vixie <paul () vix com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 18:03:58 -0800
server 192.5.5.241 { bogus yes; }; server 198.41.0.10 { bogus yes; }; server 193.0.14.129 { bogus yes; }; server 198.32.64.12 { bogus yes; };i recommend against that.Do you recommend against this particular way of telling BIND to temporarily ignore name servers which are known to be a little, errr, funky? Or do you recommend against ignoring broken name servers in general?..
i recommend against declaring servers bogus unless you're going to monitor them and mark them unbogus as soon as they are OK again. (like F, right now, is OK again since the FTP of the com zone from internic finally finished.)
I guess what I really would like to know is how did you handle this problem? :) Just wondering,
we did what most people did: suffered. also, i took F offline while it was fetching the COM zone. dns leaks a fair bit. we have 20+ nameservers here, and i did not want to go in and mark the bad-servers-of-the-hour as bogus.
Current thread:
- QUICKER FIX Re: [fjk].gtld-servers.net bogus for .com J.D. Falk (Nov 11)
- Re: QUICKER FIX Re: [fjk].gtld-servers.net bogus for .com Marc Slemko (Nov 11)
- Re: QUICKER FIX Re: [fjk].gtld-servers.net bogus for .com Paul Vixie (Nov 11)
- Re: QUICKER FIX Re: [fjk].gtld-servers.net bogus for .com Paul Vixie (Nov 11)
- Re: QUICKER FIX Re: [fjk].gtld-servers.net bogus for .com Paul Vixie (Nov 11)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: QUICKER FIX Re: [fjk].gtld-servers.net bogus for .com Scott Gifford (Nov 11)
- Re: QUICKER FIX Re: [fjk].gtld-servers.net bogus for .com Paul A Vixie (Nov 11)
- Re: QUICKER FIX Re: [fjk].gtld-servers.net bogus for .com Marc Slemko (Nov 11)