I suspect It's the DNS glue.. (an A record held at the parent). You'll need to update your delegation with the domain tag holder / registrar

Done, done and done again! (Over several days). The updates are getting through - if I change the name of the other nameserver, and update the details via the 123-Reg control panel, it's reflected instantly in the Nominet listing, for example. But it will not change this one.

Has it prompted your for the IP of the nameserver? If not then maybe it's an issue with the 123-Reg Control Panel?

Quote from 123-Reg control panel (in my case using bitfolk as secondaries)

When entering the IP address for a nameserver within example1.co.uk, you will need to use an IP address which has not been used as a nameserver for a different domain. You cannot use the same IP for different nameservers.

Alternatively, there might be workarounds e.g. listing a slightly different dns name in the short-term e.g. sub1 or top1 in both DNS and delegation and changing it back a bit later.

Whilst it was some time ago, I do seem to recall I once had to do this in similar circumstances with 123-reg. It seemed that if you were merely changing the IP address of a glue record then their system did not detect the change hence nothing was done. Instead I had to temporarily remove the delegation with the (old) glue record, let that ripple through, and then 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.

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.

Hi Ian, On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 08:19:25PM +0000, Ian wrote: Do you mean two VPSes at BitFolk? If so, can you explain a bit more? Just trying to understand your needs here. There's currently one customer who has just over 50 domains on the BitFolk secondary service, and I haven't yet contacted them to see what they want to do about it because: a) I haven't thought too much about what to charge for "above 50", and; b) Before charging I would like to have a better web interface in place so that customers can add, remove and disable domains without having to submit support tickets. So I have let them languish at just above 50 and will continue to do so until I have more of an idea. I haven't got rid of the 50 limit because I do still think there needs to be some sort of limit. The next person down the list by domain count is somewhere around 20 so it hasn't been a pressing issue. I should probably have realised though that there might be more of you who were just put off by there seeming to be nowhere to go. How many domains do you have? What would you consider a fair price for DNS hosting for them? Are there missing features that you feel would need to be implemented before BitFolk could actually charge for the >50 case? I want to focus on doing DNS hosting for existing customers only, which means they have the ability to run their own master DNS server(s)¹. I don't want to get into hosting DNS with a web interface to manipulate zone content. I want to provide the DNS servers and monitoring of them, and basically any other assistance you can think of that enables you to run your own stuff. I appreciate that for a lot of people with a large number of domains the question may still be, "why would I pay BitFolk when there are companies out there that will provide secondary DNS for free?"² That's fine - what I'm trying to do is provide some nameservers for people who don't have them, and monitoring to go with it that is as comprehensive as possible. If that's not of interest then no worries. Also, I know that when it comes to paying, there are companies that will sell you DNS hosting, and their infrastructure will be a lot bigger and more resilient than BitFolk's. That's also OK - maybe one day I can compete with them on that score, but right now I am still trying to cater to the hobbyist and small business and hope to come in at a lower price than these services. But if you or anyone else does have interest in putting more than 50 domains on BitFolk's servers, what sort of pricing and other things would you like to see? As far as pricing goes, OK let's start. What about first 50 domains per VPS for free (as it is now), then every block of 50 domains after that is £0.99+VAT per month or £9.99+VAT per year? And I make the add/remove/disable/enable thing work first. Cheers, Andy ¹ Having a VPS gives the technical basis, but I don't mind taking an AXFR from anywhere. ² I don't actually know any, but I assume there are plenty. I don't mind if people want to suggest some. -- http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting _______________________________________________ users mailing list users(a)lists.bitfolk.com https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users

On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 07:09:23PM +0000, Ian wrote: 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.

On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 00:13, Andy Bennett <andyjpb(a)ashurst.eu.org> wrote: This seems to be a common misconception. A properly implemented MTA must queue and retry also on temporary DNS lookup errors.

I don't believe such behaviour is particularly widespread, and hence I would be reluctant to rely upon it in practice. Indeed, RFC2182 is quite clear on the importance of having reachable DNS even if the referenced services are affected by the same issue(s) (e.g. if sat on the same box):

Quite... and lack of any NS servers tends to be treated as a non-existent domain.