The network that ns1.granitecanyon.com is on appears to be
down; traceroutes die at ge-1-2-0.a01.enwdco01.us.ra.verio.net
(129.250.26.147) . Anyone know what's going on with that?
Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 01:18:40PM -0400, Bob K:
The network that ns1.granitecanyon.com is on appears to be
down; traceroutes die at ge-1-2-0.a01.enwdco01.us.ra.verio.net
(129.250.26.147) . Anyone know what's going on with that?--
Bob <melange@yip.org> | Yes. I know. That is, indeed, *not* mayonnaise.
then the problem is likely between verio.net and granitecanyon.com or
within one of those two you clearly already have enough information to
be following rfc 2142 instead of posting to nanog.
is the nanog list community ready for a nanog-outages list so we
dont have to see these "the sun is down in my hemipshere, anyone
know why?" messages?
YES! Since we're at it, can we add the these two/too:
nanog-i-love-maps
nanog-i-hate-maps
nanog-new-lists-ideas
-Jim P.
My apologies. The reason I posted to NANOG is because granitecanyon.com
hosts The Public DNS Service, which handles a *lot* of nameservice for
"The Little People" due to said services being free and automated; thus, I
thought the answer would be of interest to many here. I've consequently
emailed support@verio.net instead and will attempt to keep my posts
on-topic here in the future.
Really? I would think the opposite. What makes you think NANOG is
populated by "The Little People"?
I mean, I'm one of "The Little People" on this list, and I have an ASN,
two /19s, several thousand customers, over a thousand domains, and NOCs in
different states. Most of the people on this list would laugh at such a
small network.
I would tend to think that if you're using granitecanyon, you obviously
don't have a name server, which means (to me) you don't have a Network in
North America to Operate.
No biggy, I'm just fascinated by people's assumptions and perspectives.
Andy
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Andy Dills 301-682-9972
Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access
> hosts The Public DNS Service, which handles a *lot* of nameservice for
> "The Little People" due to said services being free and automated;
"Many Little People Didn't Get What They Hadn't Paid For. Film At 11."
The problem is that it's your help desk that gets the "I cant send mail
to foo@xyz.com" when it's xyz.com that doesn't have a real nameserver of
its own.
Most of the people on this list didn't have any fiber in a train tunnel
in Baltimore either, but it still affects us.
> My apologies. The reason I posted to NANOG is because granitecanyon.com
> hosts The Public DNS Service, which handles a *lot* of nameservice for
> "The Little People" due to said services being free and automated; thus, I
> thought the answer would be of interest to many here. I've consequently
> emailed support@verio.net instead and will attempt to keep my posts
> on-topic here in the future.Really? I would think the opposite. What makes you think NANOG is
populated by "The Little People"?
Many network operators have their own domains for personal use. Many
people find great value in separating personal and work things, especially
with companies dropping like flies. Granitecanyon provides for such
separation at no cost. So this really was more of interest to network
operators *personally* instead of *in relation to their networks*.
Which, as I realized later, is off-topic. (although two emails off-list
have pointed out that it's more on-topic than most of the MAPS debates
lately)
No biggy, I'm just fascinated by people's assumptions and perspectives.
Now you know. (although if you don't, reply personally as opposed to the
list due to massive off-topicness at this point)
Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 02:26:03PM -0400, Bob K:
> > The network that ns1.granitecanyon.com is on appears to be
> > down; traceroutes die at ge-1-2-0.a01.enwdco01.us.ra.verio.net
> > (129.250.26.147) . Anyone know what's going on with that?
>
> then the problem is likely between verio.net and granitecanyon.com or
> within one of those two you clearly already have enough information to
> be following rfc 2142 instead of posting to nanog.My apologies. The reason I posted to NANOG is because granitecanyon.com
hosts The Public DNS Service, which handles a *lot* of nameservice for
"The Little People" due to said services being free and automated; thus, I
s/The Little//
you did follow rfc 2182, right. so, those particular nameservers being
down should not be of too much concern for operation as your secondaries
pick up the load.
anyway, if the rfc2142 contacts haven't been exhausted, the broadcast to
nanog is inappropriate, as is the precedence that has developed here to
ignore the rfc and any entity who chooses not to maintain the contact
addresses per the rfc.