- Original Message -
From: "Randy Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Christopher L. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 16:35
Subject: Re: Problems with NS*.worldnic.com
>
> lots of folk sent email to me and not the list.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christ
opher L. Morrow" writes:
>
>
>On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>> lots of folk sent email to me and not the list. most report
>> worldnic responding with tcp 53 and not udp. would love to
>> hear confirmation on list. can think of a number of caus
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 01:22:41PM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Simon Waters wrote:
> >
> > > The worldnic.com and worldnic.net appear to use the MMDDVV convention
> > > for
> > > SOA serial numbers, and s
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
> lots of folk sent email to me and not the list. most report
> worldnic responding with tcp 53 and not udp. would love to
> hear confirmation on list. can think of a number of causes,
> one possible, but just a stab in the dark, would be an
> intentiona
Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> lots of folk sent email to me and not the list. most report worldnic
> responding with tcp 53 and not udp. would love to hear confirmation
> on list. can think of a number of causes, one possible, but just a
> stab in the dark, would be an intentional hack a
At 21:34 -0700 4/25/05, Rodney Joffe wrote:
The culprit is dig.
Ahh, dig. What version? You have to be running the latest at all
times these days...so many changes...
In my experiences with v6 the problems I have come down two are:
1) Broken testing tools. (See change 1610 in the BIND CHANGES
lots of folk sent email to me and not the list. most report
worldnic responding with tcp 53 and not udp. would love to
hear confirmation on list. can think of a number of causes,
one possible, but just a stab in the dark, would be an
intentional hack as a defense to a spoofed-ip attack.
what a
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Simon Waters wrote:
> Have to say we see no issues here with the worldnic.com nameservers, other
> than they appear to be located on the same physical network.
>
> I think people should post queries that fail, including date/time, and full
> "dig" output for that query from
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
I'd say fix the resolver to not try resolve v6 where there exists no
v6 connectivity
I'd say fix the broken v6 connectivity.
- Kevin
Have to say we see no issues here with the worldnic.com nameservers, other
than they appear to be located on the same physical network.
I think people should post queries that fail, including date/time, and full
"dig" output for that query from the server they used, and the version of
recursiv
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:19:51 PDT, "william(at)elan.net" said:
> Perhaps a solution is to specifically enable ipv6 dns resolution as
> preferable to ipv4 or the other way around. This could perhaps be
> switch in resolv.conf or nsswitch.conf. Something like:
> /etc/resolv.conf
> search example.co
something *very* strange is going on. the worldnic servers have
been giving delayed or no results for days now. and nsi is hoping
we and the wsj/nyt won't notice.
I agree 100%.
but it's probably time for us all to dump symptoms here and figure
it out as a community, as the dog with the bone ain
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:34:54 PDT, Rodney Joffe said:
I am not sure whether the correct solution is to "fix" dig so that is tries
ipv4, or to get the os "fixed" on a dual stack capable system so that if
there is not ipv6 connectivity it disables that par
> So how is it supposed to "know" that it doesn't have an ipv6 connection?
in my case, because
o no interfaces have v6 addresses
o v6 stack is not present
o ...
it should also not use smoke signals, analog voice phone, ...
the chances of a box having a v6 connection to *anything* today
is
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:34:54 PDT, Rodney Joffe said:
> I am not sure whether the correct solution is to "fix" dig so that is tries
> ipv4, or to get the os "fixed" on a dual stack capable system so that if
> there is not ipv6 connectivity it disables that part of the system. I
> suspect the first
On 4/26/05, Rodney Joffe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The culprit is dig.
>
> I am not sure whether the correct solution is to "fix" dig so that is tries
> ipv4, or to get the os "fixed" on a dual stack capable system so that if
> there is not ipv6 connectivity it disables that part of the sy
Randy, and others with this issue...
On 4/25/05 5:24 PM, "Randy Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> something *very* strange is going on. the worldnic servers have
> been giving delayed or no results for days now. and nsi is hoping
> we and the wsj/nyt won't notice.
>
> i don't think this
Matt Larson wrote:
a.gtld-servers.net and b.gtld-servers.net have records. Some
applications and stacks try the v6 address first if it's available and
will appear to hang if you don't have v6 connectivity. That may very
well be what's happening here.
Are the records for a & b.gtld-serve
Well, the first thing any engineer worth their saly would
ask in a situatin such as this is "Were any changes implemented,
concurrent with the appearance of these problems, which would
have possibly account for this?"
This problem has fairly wide-spread implications, it would
appear, and the lac
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
> i don't think this
>
> roam.psg.com:/usr/home/randy> doc -p -w worldnic.net
> Doc-2.1.4: doc -p -w worldnic.net
> Doc-2.1.4: Starting test of worldnic.net. parent is net.
> Doc-2.1.4: Test date - Mon Apr 25 14:20:45 HST 2005
> ;; res_
something *very* strange is going on. the worldnic servers have
been giving delayed or no results for days now. and nsi is hoping
we and the wsj/nyt won't notice.
i don't think this
roam.psg.com:/usr/home/randy> doc -p -w worldnic.net
Doc-2.1.4: doc -p -w worldnic.net
Doc-2.1.4: St
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Graeme Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> >I saw some mention of this in a previous thread. Is anyone else still
> >experiencing problems? We're seeing general slowness and the use of the
> >truncate bit in responses, forcing to TCP mode.
>
>
> We're still having a wack of issues with a
>I saw some mention of this in a previous thread. Is anyone else still
>experiencing problems? We're seeing general slowness and the use of the
>truncate bit in responses, forcing to TCP mode.
We're still having a wack of issues with all names on NSI nameservers. Poking
around at other s
We have few servers with Interland / Miami. Today for around 1 hour 15
minutes the dns / tcp traffic was timing out.
Httpd was very slow for domains with backup dns servers in Europe but other
domains with DNS within Interland only was not resolving at all.
I only noticed that traffic was not g
24 matches
Mail list logo
