[23250] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Secondary DNS for Paraguay's TLD?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Mon Mar 8 09:40:51 1999
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 09:38:37 -0500
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
To: alex@nac.net
Cc: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>,
Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com>, nanog@merit.edu
Mail-Followup-To: alex@nac.net, Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com>,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9903080918010.20527-100000@iago.nac.net>; from alex@nac.net on Mon, Mar 08, 1999 at 09:20:24AM -0500
On Mon, Mar 08, 1999 at 09:20:24AM -0500, alex@nac.net wrote:
>
> > Anyone in a situation like this, I'm willing to do secondaries
> > for these sorts of domains, and plan to build a secondary-dns-server
> > engine that people would be able to send templates to, etc..
>
> Same here; nac.net would be willing to host any secondary DNS for anyone,
> specifically TLDs or foreign folks. Foreign to the US, that is :-)
>
> > IMHO, the internic should not allow any domains to have pri+sec nameserver
> > in the same /24
>
> Amen, except it can be misleading.
>
> NS1.NAC.NET 207.99.0.1
> NS2.NAC.NET 207.99.0.2
> NS6.NAC.NET 209.123.20.243
>
> Whilst 207.99.0.1 and .2 are on the same /24 (obviously), 207.99.0/24 is
> subnetted to 256 /32's, and routed to the machines. Why? So, when a
> machine/name-server moves within our network, it doesn't have to be
> renumbered.
My point is that you're doing it correctly. If you lose
one of your aggregate blocks, it's not going to cause a problem. Like
for example, if someone else started to announce your /24 or a /19
with your dns servers in it.
You also distribute nameservers geographically, so if you
lose power in a location, you don't die.
- jared
--
Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net
clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
