[dns-operations] The strange case of fox.com

Dave Warren davew at hireahit.com
Fri Mar 4 01:52:54 UTC 2016

On 2016-03-02 18:09, Rich Goodson wrote:
> In the instance that I brought up, undergoing excommunication of the 
> zone successfully might have made the DNS better as a whole (making 
> the world a better place), but it would not have solved my problem.
> My problem was that users couldn't get to a web site some of the time 
> to pay their credit card bill or check their balance (more accurately, 
> my problem was having to listen to the complaining that ensued).  If 
> I, instead of implementing a workaround, got domain excommunicated, 
> then instead of my users not being able to get to a web site some of 
> the time, now they can't get to it ever.

For varying degrees of "ever": if one of my domains or my customer's 
domains were removed from the root due to technical issues, I'd address 
those technical issues and get my domain re-instated. You do realize 
that this isn't a case of removing the domain forever, just until it's 
properly configured, correct?

Sure, some tiny percentage of domains might pack it up and take up a new 
hobby, but for any business that wants people to pay their bills, buy 
their services, view their ads, or otherwise do the things that justify 
the expense of a having an internet presence, they'll hire someone 
competent and fix the issue.

> The only benefit to me would have been no longer hearing "it works on 
> Google's DNS". 

I think you're either thinking only 17 minutes ahead here; give it at 
least 30 minutes for someone to get paged, respond, frantically review 
the fundamentals of DNS delegation and fix things up. Once the 
underlying problem is resolved, it would work on Google's DNS, yours, 
mine, and everyone else's.

We might still hear "It works on Google's DNS", to which you would reply 
"Yup, and it works on mine too!"

Dave Warren

More information about the dns-operations mailing list