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.
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?
--- john heasley <heas@shrubbery.net> wrote:
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. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, john heasley wrote:
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 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. -- Bob <melange@yip.org> | Yes. I know. That is, indeed, *not* mayonnaise.
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Bob K wrote:
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
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 14:43:22 EDT, Andy Dills said:
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.
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. -- Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Andy Dills wrote:
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) -- Bob <melange@yip.org> | Yes. I know. That is, indeed, *not* mayonnaise.
Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 02:26:03PM -0400, Bob K:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, john heasley wrote:
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.
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.
participants (6)
-
Andy Dills -
Bob K -
Jim Popovitch -
john heasley -
Lou McIntosh -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu