> add it back in with the new IP address. It didn't affect resolution in the
> interim given I had the second authoritative nameserver still being
> referenced.
First go and the Nominet computer says:
Name servers:
ns1.example.co.uk 85.119.83.xx
ns2.example.co.uk 212.13.195.yy
Argh!
Second go, with two names that definitely had not been used ever before:
Name servers:
ffs.example.co.uk 85.119.83.xx
wtf.example.co.uk 85.119.83.yy
Finally...
Ian
From andy@??? Sat Feb 11 19:19:46 2012
Received: from andy by mail.bitfolk.com with local (Exim 4.72)
(envelope-from <andy@???>) id 1RwIU6-0005vZ-GI
for users@???; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 19:19:46 +0000
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 19:19:46 +0000
From: Andy Smith <andy@???>
To: users@???
Message-ID: <20120211191946.GG23380@???>
References: <4F352183.4070708@???>
<2AEAD09C-4403-484D-95BB-D0B313FC5DCD@???>
<4F354B64.7040405@???> <4F35596E.3000906@???>
<4F364EB3.3000604@???>
<85f2071f1be555fe6f6a47eb6bafbb58.squirrel@???>
<4F36BCE3.7080905@???>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-ripemd160;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="N709L9vpgywc1qLv"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4F36BCE3.7080905@???>
OpenPGP: id=BF15490B; url=http://strugglers.net/~andy/pubkey.asc
X-URL: http://strugglers.net/wiki/User:Andy
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Sat,
11 Feb 2012 19:19:46 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: andy@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
spamd0.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-ASN:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=NO_RELAYS shortcircuit=no
autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.0 NO_RELAYS Informational: message was not relayed via SMTP
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:14:11 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.bitfolk.com)
Subject: Re: [bitfolk] IP address at Nominet's nameservers is wrong
X-BeenThere: users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11
Precedence: list
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 19:19:46 -0000
--N709L9vpgywc1qLv
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Ian,
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 07:09:23PM +0000, Ian wrote:
> Second go, with two names that definitely had not been used ever before:
>
> Name servers:
> ffs.example.co.uk 85.119.83.xx
> wtf.example.co.uk 85.119.83.yy
I do not recommend having all your nameservers in 85.119.80.0/21. If
Jump Networks were to go off the air, none of your nameservers would
be reachable. Of course, if everything you host is at BitFolk then
that may not matter much, but still.
BitFolk does provide three secondary nameservers free for your use,
and two of them are outside 85.119.80.0/21.
Cheers,
Andy
--=20
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
--N709L9vpgywc1qLv
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEAREDAAYFAk82v1IACgkQIJm2TL8VSQu6FgCgo2f/bdtgVbOksuGEYu3gIyiM
wZ8An1xATAC3cm0Mo6DoZS84lokbxTz/
=hV2I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--N709L9vpgywc1qLv--
From ian@??? Sat Feb 11 20:19:31 2012
Received: from semi-divine.com ([85.119.83.38] helo=topcat.semi-divine.com)
by mail.bitfolk.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
(envelope-from <ian@???>) id 1RwJPv-0000Kf-78
for users@???; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:19:31 +0000
Received: from [192.168.0.23]
(cpc3-nwrk4-2-0-cust250.12-1.cable.virginmedia.com [86.26.44.251])
by topcat.semi-divine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 309D884475
for <users@???>; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:19:26 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4F36CD4D.9030101@???>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:19:25 +0000
From: Ian <ian@???>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:9.0) Gecko/20111229 Thunderbird/9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bitfolk Users <users@???>
References: <4F352183.4070708@???>
<2AEAD09C-4403-484D-95BB-D0B313FC5DCD@???>
<4F354B64.7040405@lovi
