[98772] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Do I or RR need dns clue?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Andrews)
Fri Aug 17 01:23:58 2007
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:11:58 +1000 (EST)
From: Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org>
To: ml@t-b-o-h.net, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <200708170226.l7H2QZSw019129@himinbjorg.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
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
