Discuss mailing list

[sjeap <sjeap AT lavabit.com>]

There we go, this should be one of them, as far as I remember.

Regards sjeap

Am 10.10.2012 22:57, schrieb Hunter 9999:
> 
> What is is with this one:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/opennicwizard
> If I understand the description, it automate this process, or not?
>
>-------- Original-Nachricht --------
>Betreff: Re: [opennic-discuss] Policy proposal for removal of
>non-responding T2 servers
>Datum: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 22:53:58 +0200
>Von: sjeap <sjeap AT lavabit.com>
>Antwort an: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
>An: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
>
> 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.
>