New ip for DNS servers will not allow host some domain zones

[worldhosting]

Hi,

As i saw in message from Vortech - all 4 dns assigned from one C class network. Therefore, for example .ru domains can't be hosted on above 4 nameservers for .ru domain zone rules requirements (as minimum 2 nameservers from DIFFERENT C class networks).
This will create difficulties for us with hosting .ru domains (and not only .ru domains but i am sure some other). I am not understand why Vortech can't assign ip addresss for nameservers which can give us and anyone else who would like host ANY domains in ANY world zone. Right now, i am not see any difficulties for realize this. This will only expand Vortech services.

Thanks

We may investigate additional IPs in the future, but even our IPs before were on the same C block (65.57.231.100/120). We'd suggest a .com/.net/.org just for your nameservers (could still use the .ru for server aliases), since they don't have those restrictions. '.biz' and some others won't work since they required dedicated IPs, and thats alot of IPs to 'throw' away (You'd still get them for ns and ns1 even though you might not ever have sites on those servers).

[Brangwyn]

The whole philosophy behind being on different C class addresses is to try and make sure the DNS Servers are at geographically diverse locations (this is an RFC recommendation rather than mandate). Even with Vortech putting on IP's in another C class range, you still won't have that diversity. Generally speaking when DNS goes down here (which is very very rare) ... everything goes down with it.

[worldhosting]

Yes, i know about 65.xxx.xxx adress and we use external dns servers with ip-poiting for resolve situation. But then we have few month very happy time, when you use 216.157.129.251 & 216.157.131.129 address which allow to us hosts .ru domains with full convenince. Most of our customers transfer his domains from external dns to ours and now he again will need transfer it back. This is really very incovenience. I understand that generally speaking this is rare situation and as i know RFC recommendation using only very small domain zone rules (include unfortunately our russian .ru and .su zone) but this understanding can't help us for solving problem. We can't change our zone rules.
Our problem is not consist from which zone we use domains for nameservers (we use .ws domains for hosting domain and it's nameservers). We have problem in it's ip address which not meet to zone requirement.
One of solution as i seem now may be using primary nameservers from hsphere and secondary (slave) from external nameservers, but i am not sure that hsphere can allow it for resellers. May be it is possible?

Thanks

[Brangwyn]

You should be OK using secondary nameservers that are non Vortech. I've been trialling using other external nameservers myself recently to use as tertiary nameservers and things seem to be OK.

One thing that perhaps Matt could confirm is whether or not you will continue to allow DNS Zone Data transfers to external DNS Servers as everything kinda hinges on you not locking this down and disallowing it.

[worldhosting]

O, this is a good news Okay i will open ticket for continue discussing this way more detailed. From our side - there is not any problem , we have own servers and enough quantity of currently free ips.
Thanks to Brangwyn and Bladesnitz and all other man for help!

Originally Posted by Brangwyn

You should be OK using secondary nameservers that are non Vortech. I've been trialling using other external nameservers myself recently to use as tertiary nameservers and things seem to be OK.

One thing that perhaps Matt could confirm is whether or not you will continue to allow DNS Zone Data transfers to external DNS Servers as everything kinda hinges on you not locking this down and disallowing it.

I'm not planning on changing the config... So if its working, I dont see that changing.

[worldhosting]

bad news for us

[Brangwyn]

Originally Posted by worldhosting

bad news for us

Actually it's good news, it means you'll be fine using another secondary name server service.

I would recommend you check out www.dnsmadeeasy.com for about $5 a year you can have them host up to 50 domains in their nameservers as a "secondary", I've just loaded up all my service domains with them now that Matt's confirmed the above and things look ok so far.

The only problem I can find doing this so far (and I don't really know the implications of it either), is that you can't list the nameservers NS records on your primary at Vortech which is a bit of a PITA, I've never understood why HSphere won't let you do this.

[dweimann]

Brangwyn,

Whats the advantage to using a second set of nameservers? In case the vortech dns goes down? Maybe this is a good approach if you host mutliple places?

[Brangwyn]

Basically it's just a backstop in case Vortech DNS do go down, it also allows me to do things like fallover some sites to alternate servers like you say.

[bigdave]

Then again if DNS is down, your site most likely is too....

Originally Posted by Brangwyn

Basically it's just a backstop in case Vortech DNS do go down, it also allows me to do things like fallover some sites to alternate servers like you say.

[Brangwyn]

Thats when the fallover bit comes into it .. short TTL's allow for a fairly quick change from one IP to another for any site.

[worldhosting]

Generally speaking, two nameservers already use for backup. Really, only one nameserver will enough for support any domain (it is called as primary). In case if primary nameserver go down, secondary nameserver will work and support all domain zones on it. But, this work only when above nameservers placed on different location not only with different ip-address. So, using two nameservers is enough. Setting 4 or more nameservers located on one location (data-center) is not need. If data-center will down, all nameserver also will down, so this is not good backup solution.

[Brangwyn]

Personally my nameservers that I have are in upto 4 different locations depending on which ones I decide to use, thats good enough for me.