Ok, but isn't this "one of those things" taken up better with google and
yahoo sales people?
Operationally, they have a large impact and they responded well.
If you only knew how many DDOS attacks your providers (all encompassed) see
and soak up, you'd be surprised.
YMMV
-M
Regards,
So, were google/yahoo able to get verisign to push a change to the gtld registry to update their NS's, or was it just done during a scheduled update?
How much clout does one need to have the com zone updated/pushed/reloaded? 
What makes you think an update at the GTLDs was required?
Try digging for google.com, then dig for www.google.com. See which points at whom.
Ya...didn't look at the setup before I posted, oh well..
I'll still pose the question as a theoretical one... say it was ultradns rather than akadns (..or any substantially large website in traffic having an authoritive DNS attack), would verisign be willing to push changes for somebody 'big' ? should they?
Matt
The only time I remember that the .com zone was pushed out of window for a customer was one time AOL had a problem with AOL.com. I think they let it expire by accident, not certain. Check the NANOG archives.
Interesting that AOL can force a push but "ianai.net" cannot. Is it because they have more users? Would citibank.com be able to do the same thing? How about xxxPR0Nxxx.com? I bet some of them have lots and lots of users too.... 
Other than that, I remember the .com zone being pushed mid-day when there was an error during the over-night push.
think stability.
--bill
I think recent events prove pretty well that Verisign GRS no longer gives a crap about stability. Have we forgotten *.COM so quickly?
> think stability.
I think recent events prove pretty well that Verisign GRS no longer gives
a crap about stability. Have we forgotten *.COM so quickly?
oh please. i was an publically critical of *.COM and *.NET, but that's a
policy problem, not an operational problem. verisign has a very good
record for name server uptime, both at the TLD and root level. if you're
going to complain about their wildcard policies, please be specific.
(note that verisign has amended their complaint against icann (since the
court dismissed the first one) and i'm now named as a co-conspirator. if
you reply to this message, there's a good chance of your e-mail appearing
in court filings at some point.)
Cool.
> > think stability.
>
> I think recent events prove pretty well that Verisign GRS no longer gives
> a crap about stability. Have we forgotten *.COM so quickly?oh please. i was an publically critical of *.COM and *.NET, but that's a
policy problem, not an operational problem. verisign has a very good
record for name server uptime, both at the TLD and root level. if you're
going to complain about their wildcard policies, please be specific.
Enough has been said about that, though a concrete list of the cons have
never been published (pointers anyone?). The biggest con is simply that
.com becomes a normal domain and not a zone which only contains NS
records making every domain just a subzone (technically that is it
indeed) of the .com. If Verisign wants to own every domain in the .com
zone they should register every one of them seperatly and pay the
registration fees to one of the other registrars. It also breaks normal
operational usage and the year old assumptions that people can make of
it.
(note that verisign has amended their complaint against icann (since the
court dismissed the first one) and i'm now named as a co-conspirator. if
you reply to this message, there's a good chance of your e-mail appearing
in court filings at some point.)
For that matter I think (and hope) that most people on NANOG will be
delighted to stand at your side against this Verisign madness.
Greets,
Jeroen