Paul
In message <v03110719b311d813a483@[192.168.0.1]>, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" writes:
> Today is a gloomy day for "CC." domain holders. My sympathies lie
> with anyone using a CC. toplevel domain today (Sunday, March 14,
> 1999).
Just for the record, you are not, by any chance, in direct
competititon with the Domain Manager of .CC?
And otherwise, what is it to you? If you notice such a problem you can
try and inform the Domain Manager or one of the people at the name
servers so they can fix whatever needs to be fixed. In this case,
nothing.
> The dns servers (two of them) for the toplevel domain "CC."
> are unreachable.
I have no problems whatsoever resolving CC.
> Since both of their listed nameservers are on the SAME PIPE (*a real
> NO-NO as far as I know) the entire TLD is DEAD!
This is not true.
> I tested this from several routes, from NY, San Jose, and
> Amsterdam...all routes lead to nowhere.
Maybe you should try from Mars.
I can reach www.cc at 206.253.214.20 which resolves reversely to
www.nic.cc.
> How can a TLD for an entire "country" (put aside the fact
> that the Cocos (Keeling) Islands has no human inhabitants)
> reside on a network that doesn't even have the minimun
> nameserver requirements (two servers on physically separate
> routes)?
First of all the TLD does not reside.
He has four listed name severs on three different networks. In any
case there is *NO* such requirement, it is however very adviseable.
cc. 2D IN NS NS1.GLOBALDNS.COM.
cc. 2D IN NS NS2.GLOBALDNS.COM.
cc. 2D IN NS NS1.NEWYORK.US.NETDNS.COM.
cc. 2D IN NS NS1.AUCKLAND.NZ.NETDNS.COM.
>
> This raises some very valid questions on how this TLD
> was approved in the first place!
No, not at all, it only raises the very valid question, wether your
alternative DNS is not perhaps confused.
el
--
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse\ / Swakopmund State Hospital
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * | Resident Medical Officer
Private Bag 5004 \ / +264 81 1246733 (c) 64 461005(h) 461004(f)
Swakopmund, Namibia ;____/ Domain Coordinator for NA-DOM (el108)
