Re: Do I or RR need dns clue?

["Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET" <ml () t-b-o-h net>]

> In article <200708170226.l7H2QZSw019129 () himinbjorg tucs-beachin-obx-house com> you write:
> > > Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
> > > >  Down is there isn't power to it until it gets repaired. So its not
> > > > answering period. A "nslookup" shows "timed-out". A "dig" shows 
> > > > "connection timed out; no servers could be reached" (When querying ONLY
> > > > against the down server).
> > > >
> > > >  So how do I go back to RR, who told me to take it out of my 
> > > > NS records, that DNS is supposed to be silently falling back and trying
> > > > again? 
> > >
> > >
> > > The fact that they're rejecting on a 5xx error based on no DNS PTR is a
> > > bit harsh.  While I'm all for requiring all hosts to have valid PTR
> > > records, there are times when transient or problem servers can cause a
> > > DNS lookup failure or miss, etc.  If anything they should be returning a
> > > 4xx to have the remote host"try again later".
> > Robert,
> >
> >     Sorry, they aren't giving a hard fail. Its a soft fail, so we'll 
> > retry. But after 5 days of retrying, my servers will give up. (And, in
> > the mean time, the mail isn't getting through, so my users are without mail
> > {We store/forward for them} I don't know if the down (hard) server will be 
> > back that soon (Its been 2 days as is). But the whole POINT of DNS is I have 
> > a 2nd one listed, and they don't seem to care. They are telling me that they 
> > want my "primary" one back up and running.
> >
> >                     Tuc/TBOH                
>
>       I know this is strange for nanog but if you actually stated the
>       IP addresses of the mail servers we could look to see if there
>       is a problem other than what you think the problem is.
>
>       You havn't stated it here or on bind-users
>
>       Mark
Hi,

        Just a note to let everyone know its all working again. I was
escalated to someone else in RR and intelligent things came out of their
mouth and its not an issue anymore.

        The initial responder at RR needs a clue, and the bind-users said
I was doing something "moderately bad" at the same time. I'm working out
a tactic to resolve my bent-clue issue. I hope to have that fixed in a
week or so. RR is now accepting my mail despite my "bent clue" and one
DNS server being down.

                        Tuc/TBOH