Dear Dr. Lisse, My humble apologies. I admit, the CC. affair was a false alarm... instead of doing a fresh lookup, I pinged _stale_ data that I copied and pasted from a file I had laying around...and wrongly jumped to conclusions. Apparently, they renumbered their nameservers and added a couple more since I documented their data some time ago in my notes. At the time, though CC. only had two servers on one pipe. In any event, it is wise to spread out servers on diverse nets/routes in the event of an outage. Maybe it's not a requirement, but perhaps it should be, especially when sub domains are delegated to others who serve from nets other than the one the nameservers are on. Next time, I will double check before I shout out. To err is human....next time, I will ask my DNS servers! For the record, Here's what my nameservers return: % dig cc. any ; <<>> DiG 8.1 <<>> cc. any ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 6 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 4, AUTHORITY: 4, ADDITIONAL: 4 ;; QUERY SECTION: ;; cc, type = ANY, class = IN ;; ANSWER SECTION: 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. ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: 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. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: NS1.GLOBALDNS.COM. 2D IN A 206.253.214.11 NS2.GLOBALDNS.COM. 2D IN A 206.253.214.12 NS1.NEWYORK.US.NETDNS.COM. 2D IN A 216.32.212.86 NS1.AUCKLAND.NZ.NETDNS.COM. 2D IN A 203.98.9.40 ;; Total query time: 4 msec ;; FROM: secure.pgmedia.net to SERVER: default -- 209.48.2.11 ;; WHEN: Mon Mar 15 01:17:38 1999 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 20 rcvd: 255 I hope it's also the same from Mars ;-) regards, Paul Garrin >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)
