Good point ;)
Yeah axfr would be useful (must have)
On Saturday, August 13, 2016, Ca By wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, August 12, 2016, Damian Menscher via NANOG > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
>>
>> > On a serious note, what are the providers out there that can do
Hi,
I have been very happy with route53 while lack of IPv6 support was not an
issue for the use case.
Did you evaluate CloudFlare in PaaS solution ?
Their free plan includes DNS.
Best regards,
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
> We need to provide DNS services for domains
> On 12 Aug 2016, at 18:36, Keith Stokes wrote:
>
> Route53 can get expensive for lots of domains. Queries are cheap with the
> first 1M free, but if you have 1000 domains you’ll pay $500/month.
>
> You can build dedicated servers in multiple AZs and data centers able to
> handle that many d
>From the speed comparison report: "Averaged across all name servers"
That's a silly, synthetic, and non-representative test. It encourages
cohosting all your NS at all your sites to game the performance numbers,
hurting availability.
I'd expect to see a decent amount of latency variance across th
Someone registered the domain “corp.gr” and now sells subdomains similar to
.com.gr, .co.uk, etc. They use a “clever” way to make sure they will have 100%
uptime at virtually no cost:
$ dig NS corp.gr
;; Truncated, retrying in TCP mode.
; <<>> DiG 9.8.3-P1 <<>> NS corp.gr
;; global options: +cm
On Friday, August 12, 2016, Damian Menscher via NANOG
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Mehmet Akcin > wrote:
>
> > On a serious note, what are the providers out there that can do a decent
> > secondary dns hosting service?. looks like a lot of people stopped
> offering
> > this service
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
> On a serious note, what are the providers out there that can do a decent
> secondary dns hosting service?. looks like a lot of people stopped offering
> this service for bulk amount of domains at reasonable price. Let's say
> (100K domains)
>
On a serious note, what are the providers out there that can do a decent
secondary dns hosting service?. looks like a lot of people stopped offering
this service for bulk amount of domains at reasonable price. Let's say
(100K domains)
mehmet
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message
, Rubens Kuhl writes:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Filip Hruska wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > If you are going the IaaS route, definitely checkout KnotDNS project.
> > According to their benchmarks [1], it does much better than other DNS
> > servers in about every workload.
> >
> >
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Filip Hruska wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If you are going the IaaS route, definitely checkout KnotDNS project.
> According to their benchmarks [1], it does much better than other DNS
> servers in about every workload.
>
>
The problem with KnotDNS/Yadifa/NSD is that they are
--- morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Christopher Morrow
isn't this what KC presented like 3 nanogs ago?
--
For the archives:
https://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/caida.pdf
---
Sorry, one more email. Better
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
> --- s...@donelan.com wrote:
> From: Sean Donelan
>
> CAIDA has submitted to the FCC its initial proposal for
> measuring internet interconnection point performance
> metrics as part of the AT&T/DirecTV merger conditions.
>
> http://transition.
I have a customer working for an Amazon department/division. Amazon gave
this department an AWS connection where we have an AWS cross connect and
direct fiber path established. I have the path as well as the customer
side BGP router configured and can ping the AWS router. The Amazon
department wit
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
> --- s...@donelan.com wrote:
> From: Sean Donelan
>
> CAIDA has submitted to the FCC its initial proposal for
> measuring internet interconnection point performance
> metrics as part of the AT&T/DirecTV merger conditions.
>
> http://transitio
On 8/12/16 1:41 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
>
> --- s...@donelan.com wrote:
> From: Sean Donelan
>
> CAIDA has submitted to the FCC its initial proposal for
> measuring internet interconnection point performance
> metrics as part of the AT&T/DirecTV merger conditions.
>
> http://transition.fcc.gov/Dai
isn't this what KC presented like 3 nanogs ago?
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
>
>
> --- s...@donelan.com wrote:
> From: Sean Donelan
>
> CAIDA has submitted to the FCC its initial proposal for
> measuring internet interconnection point performance
> metrics as part of the
Never say “never”. ;-)
Notice I did not say “you must” or “you should”. It is something to consider
based on how many 9s are important to your business. The job of many of us is
to think of those things that are highly unlikely, assign a risk and make a
plan (or not) accordingly. The likely one
--- s...@donelan.com wrote:
From: Sean Donelan
CAIDA has submitted to the FCC its initial proposal for
measuring internet interconnection point performance
metrics as part of the AT&T/DirecTV merger conditions.
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0812/DA-16-909A1.pd
Right -- we could do it, though it would be a first for us.
Justin Paine
Head of Trust & Safety
CloudFlare Inc.
PGP: BBAA 6BCE 3305 7FD6 6452 7115 57B6 0114 DE0B 314D
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Filip Hruska wrote:
> Even for registrars?
>
> Because OP's question was
> > We n
Even for registrars?
Because OP's question was
> We need to provide DNS services for domains we offer as a registrar.
Best Regards,
Filip
On 12.8.2016 22:11, Justin Paine via NANOG wrote:
I won't push further than this -- but it seems a bit silly not to
mention that CloudFlare provides free An
I won't push further than this -- but it seems a bit silly not to
mention that CloudFlare provides free AnyCast DNS. You can elect not
to even use any of our caching if you just want to use us for DNS.
J
Justin Paine
Head of Trust & Safety
CloudFlare Inc.
PGP: BBAA 6BCE 3305 7FD6 645
CAIDA has submitted to the FCC its initial proposal for measuring internet
interconnection point performance metrics as part of the AT&T/DirecTV
merger conditions.
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0812/DA-16-909A1.pdf
If there are other metrics in which to measure DNS speed, availability and
redundancy, I'd love to seeing them. I have but my own datapoint and the
metrics from others. Tear down the testing model, but at least show a
different/better one in return.
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016, Keith Stokes wrote:
Rout
Hi,
If you are going the IaaS route, definitely checkout KnotDNS project.
According to their benchmarks [1], it does much better than other DNS
servers in about every workload.
Best Regards,
Filip
[1] https://www.knot-dns.cz/benchmark/
On 12.8.2016 07:56, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
We need to pr
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG,
SAFNOG, SdNOG, BJNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.
Much better math than mine. I pulled from memory and didn’t know the discount @
25. I’m only running a half-dozen domains in Route53 and the rest are hosted
internally.
You could probably use less than a c4.large too.
On Aug 12, 2016, at 11:29 AM, Peter Kristolaitis
mailto:alte...@alter3d.ca>>
On 2016-08-12 11:36 AM, Keith Stokes wrote:
Route53 can get expensive for lots of domains. Queries are cheap with the first
1M free, but if you have 1000 domains you’ll pay $500/month.
If you had 1000 domains, you'd pay $110/month, not $500. The first 25
domains at $0.50/month each, after tha
Route53 can get expensive for lots of domains. Queries are cheap with the first
1M free, but if you have 1000 domains you’ll pay $500/month.
You can build dedicated servers in multiple AZs and data centers able to handle
that many domains for far less.
You might also consider running dedicated
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 1:56 AM, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
> Does anyone see a down side to using IaaS on AWS and Azure [for DNS]?
Latency is critical for DNS. Literally everything else an application
does stalls behind completion of the DNS lookups.
Everything else being equal, virtuallized infrast
Also a big fan of DNS Made easy, but I wish they’d add DNSSEC already.
I’m happy with AWS - one thing to consider is model out the network costs. That
seems to get some people, who just expect the bill for instances at end of
month. If you’re worried about availability due to an availability zon
Peter,
That test is meaningless as it is from only few locations which seems to
overlap with those who scored well.
I would suggest using that as a base to compare speed.
Mehmet
On Friday, August 12, 2016, Peter Beckman wrote:
> I highly recommend DNS Made Easy. Super fast, extremely reliable
I highly recommend DNS Made Easy. Super fast, extremely reliable (100% up
time in the last 10-12 years excluding an 8 hour period 4-5 years ago where
they got DDOSed, no issues since), very affordable.
#2 fastest for July: http://www.solvedns.com/dns-comparison/2016/07
Has been #1 several months
And regardless of what / who you choose make sure that they are
running RFC compliant servers. There are a lot of DNS providers
that feel they don't need to use RFC compliant servers which makes
problems for all the resolver vendors out there. It also make it
hard to deploy new features that dep
> On Aug 12, 2016, at 1:56 AM, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
>
> We need to provide DNS services for domains we offer as a registrar. We were
> discussing internally the different options for the deployment. Does anyone
> see a down side to using IaaS on AWS and Azure?
My big concern would be the cu
34 matches
Mail list logo