Re: Do I or RR need dns clue?

[Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews () isc org>]

In article <200708170226.l7H2QZSw019129 () himinbjorg tucs-beachin-obx-house com> you write:
> > Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
> > >    Down is there isn't power to it until it gets repaired. So its not
> > > answering period. A "nslookup" shows "timed-out". A "dig" shows 
> > > "connection timed out; no servers could be reached" (When querying ONLY
> > > against the down server).
> > >
> > >    So how do I go back to RR, who told me to take it out of my 
> > > NS records, that DNS is supposed to be silently falling back and trying
> > > again? 
> >
> >
> > The fact that they're rejecting on a 5xx error based on no DNS PTR is a
> > bit harsh.  While I'm all for requiring all hosts to have valid PTR
> > records, there are times when transient or problem servers can cause a
> > DNS lookup failure or miss, etc.  If anything they should be returning a
> > 4xx to have the remote host"try again later".
> Robert,
>
>       Sorry, they aren't giving a hard fail. Its a soft fail, so we'll 
> retry. But after 5 days of retrying, my servers will give up. (And, in
> the mean time, the mail isn't getting through, so my users are without mail
> {We store/forward for them} I don't know if the down (hard) server will be 
> back that soon (Its been 2 days as is). But the whole POINT of DNS is I have 
> a 2nd one listed, and they don't seem to care. They are telling me that they 
> want my "primary" one back up and running.
>
>                       Tuc/TBOH                

        I know this is strange for nanog but if you actually stated the
        IP addresses of the mail servers we could look to see if there
        is a problem other than what you think the problem is.

        You havn't stated it here or on bind-users

        Mark