once, years ago, Netsol -did- have a path for injecting AAAA records. It was prototype
code with the engineering team. I had records registered with them. Have since sold the domains
and they moved to other registries. But they did support it for a while.
/bill
I too had AAAA with nesol years ago. It required special phone calls to special people to update. Customer support never knew what was going on regarding AAAA or IPvWhat?.
I suspect all of the people there that know about these types of things have moved on. Netsol has been leaking people since their sale to web.com last year, from actual layoffs and fear of the same.
~matt
Summary: Do not use NSI, if you are. Switch.
/as
+1
If after all this time they haven't been able to have support for AAAA
records, they are doing a really lousy job.
regards
Carlos
No, not $50, NetSol charges me in the range of $9.75 to $9.99 per year per
domain name.
Not defending NetSol, just clarity for the purposes of the archives.
Who knows, maybe I get those rates because I mention their competitor
GoDaddy 
Tony Patti
CIO
S. Walter Packaging Corp.
Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is it get VPS servers or
some EC2 servers and setup your own DNS servers. Are there use cases where
that is not practical?
If your goal is AAAA, i assume you care about native IPv6 as mandatory
feature. And, if you care about native IPv6 as a mandatory, EC2 is
not your best better. They have competition that work very well in
this realm of providing native IPv6.
CB
They tend to not do IPv6, let alone native IPv6, they also tend to be
behind a IPv4 NAT (which is why lots of folks use AYIYA tunnels to give
them IPv6 connectivity) and more importantly on this subject, you still
need a registrar to actually link the domain name from the tld to your
server and for that purpose you need glue AAAA records and not many
support those, but it is getting better.
Greets,
Jeroen
Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is
it get VPS servers or some EC2 servers and setup your
own DNS servers. Are there use cases where that is not
practical?
Aren't we talking about NetSol as a *registrar* and inserting quad-A glue? Or did I miss the original intention?
Regards,
Tim.
Apparently they support quad-A glues if you phone them and ask for them.
Personally, I run my own DNS servers, but sometimes it's not an option.
My friend, who originally had this issue, is in a different business
line, he is not proficient in DNS server operation, and thus he's
comfortable hosting his DNS somewhere.
He spent one hour on the phone this morning with Netsol to see if he
could create a subdomain pointing to a DNS server I operate. It was also
a no-go, he got fed up with them and is changing registrars.
Thanks for all the input.
regards
Carlos
How long did it take them? We have had a request in for AAAA records
for a domain for over a week now, and nothing in whois yet.
2002, it took 3hrs.
/bill
between a couple of hours and 5 to 10 business days. The long leads times came when I no longer had direct contacts and had to go through the helpdesk.
Hi Carlos, list,
Today I entered to networksolutions.com and I remembered this
thread. I had to administer a domain name and I sadly found they have
done nothing in IPv6 during the last 12 month.
Regards,
^Ao$
Hi,
At least I know the infrastructure is not ready to accept IPv6 for
NS registration.
I tried with NetSol and GoD.
Which remind me... I'm still waiting on my NSx.BCP38.ORG from GoD?
Grr... (hate when someone is right)
You have a choice of registrars. If you don't like the one you are using right now, choose a different one. There are lots to choose from.
http://www.icann.org/registrar-reports/accredited-list.html
Joe
Not accepting AAAA is just about as bad as not accepting A records.
You wouldn't certify a registrar if they couldn't update A records.
It's about time certification was lost for failure to handle AAAA
records. The same should also apply for DS records.
:
Yo Mark!
You can suggest this to the compliance team. It seems to me (registrar
hat == "on") that in 2.5 years time, when Staff next conducts a
registrar audit, that this is a reasonable expectation of an
accreditation holding contracted party. It simply needs to be added to
the base RAA agreement.
Joe _may_ be in a position to encourage the compliance team to develop
a metric and a test mechanism, but at present, the compliance team
appears to be capable of WHOIS:43 harvesting (via Kent's boxen) and
occasional WHOIS:80 scraping, and little else beyond records
reconciliation for a limited sample. NB, investing equal oversight
labor in all current (and former) RAA holders is (a) a significant
duplication of effort for little possible benefit where shell
registrars are concerned, and (b) treats registrars (and their
registrants' interests in fair dealing) with a few hundreds of domains
and registrars (and their registrants' interests) with 10% or more of
the total gTLD registry market indifferently by policy and enforcement
tool design. The latter means most registrants (those with performance
contracts from registrars with 10% market share) receive several
orders of magnitude less contractual oversight protections than
registrants using registrars with a few hundred "names under management".
IMHO, that's a problem that could be fixed.
Eric
I said all of this years ago as a suggestion for the next round of contract
renewals (since I was told that it had to be added to the contracts first).
Best of luck. Personally, I think it should have been a requirement at least
5 years ago.
Owen