That wasn't the problem: they didn't change the name. The IP changed, but they didn't expect it to change.
The real problem was, they changed software, and found the learning curve to be steeper than expected. The server was broken for over a week while they figured all of that out. It would have been better if the server had been "discontinued" but something was up, the IP in the root was pointing to something, and the answers that something gave were, ummm, less than optimal. You're right, there are ways to prevent problems like this, but we had to get back to a stable set of name servers while the folks that ran the server sought stability. I would have done it differently, of course, but then again hindsight is 20-20. -- Lynn -----Original Message----- From: Robert L Mathews [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 12:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Domain Locking In Bulk At 5/5/02 9:02 AM, Lynn W. Taylor wrote: >Not having a change-all-nameservers is also dangerous: > >We trade secondary name service with another ISP. They made some changes >and suddenly, one of our secondary name servers was gone. If they had kept the host name the same, you wouldn't need to update every nameserver entry -- you (or they) would just update the IP address of the host record. It sounds like they changed (or discontinued) the name of the server with one hour's notice, which is, ummm, less than optimal.
