Discuss mailing list

[sjeap <sjeap AT lavabit.com>]

Hello,

This isn't a Windows problem only, I think, if you want to create a
process as described, you have to use a separate program with Linux, Mac
OS X or Android, too. Better than a Windows-only service, I assume.
There are some efforts to create such tools (also for OpenNIC), but I
currently don't remember the names. It's something more advanced than
those under http://wiki.opennicproject.org/HomePage#hn_DNS_Wizards,
needs a search through the mail archive.

However, I would agree on a somewhat shorter period, if everyone would
use only ONE DNS server. But actually one uses at least two or more DNS
servers (at different regions), so the average user would recognize an
outage of one DNS server not until a longer period. Therefore this
depends on what the change of periods is for. The public listings are
primarily for the average users. But generally, the more precise, the
better, it doesn't hurt.

Regards sjeap

Am 10.10.2012 21:17, schrieb Jeff Taylor:
> Keep in mind that the zone files and various lists are only being used
> for human reference.  When you configure DNS service on your computer,
> you are entering an IP address directly.  It would certainly make
> everyone's life much easier if there were a method for using hostnames
> for your DNS entries... however since you need dns working to look up
> the hostnames, you get into a catch-22 situation.
> 
> If someone were to write a Windows service that periodically updated the
> computer's DNS entries based on the information we provide, then having
> rapid updates to server status would be more useful.  It would be a
> simple matter for me to add country-based entries to the zone file that
> only list the servers which are currently functional, then users could
> simply pick which list they want to use as their pool, and their
> computer could automatically be kept up to date with the appropriate
> information.  THIS is something that I think would really make us stand
> out ahead of other alternate DNS services, because then no-one should
> have any issues with name resolution despite the rotating pool of public
> servers.
> 
>-------- Original-Nachricht --------
>Betreff: Re: [opennic-discuss] Policy proposal for removal of
>non-responding T2 servers
>Datum: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:09:55 +0100
>Von: Peter Green <peter AT greenpete.free>
>Antwort an: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
>An: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
>
> I agree, to be seen as a serious organization, OpenNIC needs to offer
> serious reliability.
> 
> Whilst I have admiration for volunteers efforts, I suggest not
> volunteering if you can't make the mark.
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> On 10/10/12 19:01, Jamyn Shanley wrote:
>> > Given how critical DNS is to both the end-user experience and
>> > general net functionality, I don't understand why non-responsive
>> > servers aren't removed from the zonefiles within 15 minutes of a
>> > problem. There's no reason why they couldn't be put back in
>> > rotation within an hour or two of being 100% functional again, but
>> > I gotta say if my local ISP had a policy that allowed them 7 days
>> > to get one of their DNS servers fixed (and also left the
>> > problematic server listed on their website/documentation) I'd be
>> > ... disappointed in their professionalism.
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Jeff Taylor
>> > <shdwdrgn AT sourpuss.net <mailto:shdwdrgn AT sourpuss.net>> wrote:
>> >
>> > While finishing up the code, I decided that what makes the most
>> > sense is to take a server offline based on a value of <days>, but
>> > then to bring it back online again based on a value of <hours>.
>> > The offline status is really just an extension of the temp-outage
>> > status, but this step gets a server removed from the public
>> > listings.  I certainly don't what this status to be viewed as a
>> > 'punishment' to the admins involved, rather it should be considered
>> > a notice to the users that there is an extended problem occurring.
>> >
>> > It is interesting that between both replies so far, you have both
>> > suggested the opposite extremes for bringing a server back into
>> > the pool.  My feelings on this is that since the code will automate
>> > the process, we can keep the time fairly short, however the server
>> > was marked offline for a reason, so we want to make sure it is
>> > running smoothly for a long enough period that we can be sure it is
>> > stable again.  For this reason, I think 48 hours would be a
>> > reasonable period. We should probably get some more opinions on
>> > this matter.
>> >
>> > We all seem to be in agreement that 7 days is a good length of time
>> > to wait for issues to be resolved before marking a server offline,
>> > so I'll stick with that value while moving forward.