I was just wondering, my friend and I have been arguing about this.

He told me that with ultradns.com DNS services you can change you nameservers and you would get instant 5 minute propagation worldwide.

Now is that possible?

To my belief ain't is suppose to go through your ISP to reset the DNS? For propagation to be through?

I never thought that such DNS propagation could be possible.

So am I wrong? or is my friend right, 5 minute propagation is possible with these people...ultradns.com

...don't make me look bad.

Id say its total BS, no company has control over all the ISPs in the world. Im sure they can send it out into the channels within 5 minutes but they cant guarantee what the rest of the world will do ;)

Myros

I don't see what ultradns.com has to do with changing name servers, but yes, it is possible. For example, .us domains "propagate" within five minutes. I don't like to use the word propagate because it misleads people into thinking that every single DNS change must propagate to every single DNS server in the world, which isn't true at all. That'd be impossible.

I think what your friend means is that DNS changes, not name server changes, "propagate" within five minutes, which is easily possible with any name server.

LOL, yup I see your point there. I could claim that when I change a sites DNS entry it gets "propogated" in 5 seconds ... because my servers are the only ones who care where the heck its actualy located ;) It gets propogated as quick as takes me to make the change.

Myros

Nope, you don't seem to see my point. If I set the TTL for a DNS entry to 5 seconds, then no DNS server in the world should cache it for more than 5 seconds. Then I can make a change and you'll see the change within 5 seconds or less, no matter where in the world you are. There is no propagation involved. I don't even know why that word is used. Nothing spreads anywhere.

Originally posted by HostInspect
I was just wondering, my friend and I have been arguing about this.

He told me that with ultradns.com DNS services you can change you nameservers and you would get instant 5 minute propagation worldwide.

Now is that possible?
The question (IMO) is flawed, so it is hard to tell who is right/wrong. If you are using ultradns then you are using ultradns' nameservers, therefor you wouldn't be using ultradns if you changed your nameservers to something else.

Okay, I suppose if you has NS entries you could change those and if they update every 5 minutes then your new namesers would control your domain. Is this what you mean? Or do you just mean changing the IP that your domain resolves to?

Aussie Bob dreams of a future internet where nameservers propagate faster than the time it takes to get a cold one from the fridge. :D

UltraDNS's technology isn't all that good.

As to the five minutes thing, that's just because they set low TTL's, we do it too.

Their patented "anycast" type of routing (unrelated to the fast propagation question) is kinda cool but there are a couple flaws with the way they do it.

-davidu

Originally posted by myros
Id say its total BS, no company has control over all the ISPs in the world.I DO!

There should be a minimum IQ level required before posting on these forums. You guys have no idea what your talking about.

'We use the BGP anycast-method in our backbone, and have been doing so for a long time. Basically, we have multiple caching DNS-servers scattered around our network, but all of them use the same IP-adress (well, actually two - since customers expect to configure a primary and a secondary DNS on their computers).

The DNS resolvers all run zebra and identify themselves as a private AS, announcing two single host routes (the two DNS resolver-IP's) to the border-router they are connected to.

Our customers' DNS queries will be routed to the nearest available server, by the same mechanisms as any other hot-potato routing setup (i.e. MEDs). This works beautifully since we are only dealing with DNS UDP packets. (The servers do also have a unique IP adress for management traffic etc, and these are normally routed in the IGP - but they do not respond to DNS traffic on this IP).

That way, we have both "load-balancing" (customer queries are spread out to the servers who are closest to the customer) and redundancy - if one resolver fails, BGP will use the next available route to get to this prefix. Which can also be done over multiple AS numbers. Same concept, just as simple.

This is an extremely simple anycast setup for DNS servers, and potentially other simple UDP-based services, we have been using it for a couple of years, and it works beautifully. No new protocols, no complex setups, just normal BGP operation.'

1. Lars Erik Gullerud NANOG July 5, 2002 [Re: Internet vulnerabilities]

First of all, I want to say, I sure hope you are Lars Erik Gullerud otherwise you TOTALLY plagerized this post (http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg01184.html) from NANOG.

That out of the way... Not only do I know what I'm talking about but your post is talking about resolver name servers, not authoritative name servers for third party domains which is what we were talking about.

But lets continue...

Originally posted by Manual FSCK
There should be a minimum IQ level required before posting on these forums. You guys have no idea what your talking about.


Who are you talking to?

Originally posted by Manual FSCK
We use the BGP anycast-method in our backbone, and have been doing so for a long time. Basically, we have multiple caching DNS-servers scattered around our network, but all of them use the same IP-adress (well, actually two - since customers expect to configure a primary and a secondary DNS on their computers).

Who's backbone? What ASN? Did you provision a large subnet for this anycast setup or simply like a /29?

Originally posted by Manual FSCK
The DNS resolvers all run zebra and identify themselves as a private AS, announcing two single host routes (the two DNS resolver-IP's) to the border-router they are connected to.

Right, standard anycast techniques.

Originally posted by Manual FSCK
Our customers' DNS queries will be routed to the nearest available server, by the same mechanisms as any other hot-potato routing setup (i.e. MEDs). This works beautifully since we are only dealing with DNS UDP packets. (The servers do also have a unique IP adress for management traffic etc, and these are normally routed in the IGP - but they do not respond to DNS traffic on this IP).

Again, many places do this. ns1.level3.net and ns2.level3.net do this as well. (as I learned last night)

Originally posted by Manual FSCK
That way, we have both "load-balancing" (customer queries are spread out to the servers who are closest to the customer) and redundancy - if one resolver fails, BGP will use the next available route to get to this prefix. Which can also be done over multiple AS numbers. Same concept, just as simple.

So you'd be willing to announce a /20 or larger JUST for a couple nameservers? You do know that on the net, most people will filter out anything less than a /20. UltraDNS announces their routes within their backbone provider's network and then internally does the routing with their provider. (as far as I can tell // figure out)

Originally posted by Manual FSCK
This is an extremely simple anycast setup for DNS servers, and potentially other simple UDP-based services, we have been using it for a couple of years, and it works beautifully. No new protocols, no complex setups, just normal BGP operation.

Yes and no, you're right but you answered the wrong question.

(This is all assuming you are Lars Erik Gullerud (http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg01184.html)) :D

-davidu

Originally posted by DavidU

So you'd be willing to announce a /20 or larger JUST for a couple nameservers? You do know that on the net, most people will filter out anything less than a /20. UltraDNS announces their routes within their backbone provider's network and then internally does the routing with their provider. (as far as I can tell // figure out)


Backbone providers will do the same thing with their own DNS servers. Based on what I have seen from other large DNS providers, my guess is you are pretty close to accurate in your assessment of how they are doing the announcing.

That would be normal behavior anyway. Since most people don't have enough IPs to announce the routes on their own, they feed into the provider, who then shares the necessary information with the rest of the world.

Originally posted by ToastyX
Nope, you don't seem to see my point. If I set the TTL for a DNS entry to 5 seconds, then no DNS server in the world should cache it for more than 5 seconds.


The problem of course is that not all caching/recursive name servers honor 5 second TTLs, or even 5 minute TTLs. So, while technically what ULTRDNS does is possible, the reality is that 5 minute updates won't always happen in 5 minutes.

I don't recall citing the words in my post as my own. Nor did I take credit for them.

Go find something better to do with your time.

Originally posted by Manual FSCK
I don't recall citing the words in my post as my own. Nor did I take credit for them.

Go find something better to do with your time.


And maybe you should learn to use the quote feature :D

Originally posted by Manual FSCK
I don't recall citing the words in my post as my own. Nor did I take credit for them.

Go find something better to do with your time.

LOL!!! You are a complete and utter buffoon. If you are going to quote someone else, you need to put the quote in text. Certainly, leaving the words "We" and "Our" in the post would lead a normal human being to conclude you are referring to a company with which you are affiliated.

Either way, I think you have effectively shown that you do not have the requisite IQ to post here. Off with you :D.

Originally posted by Manual FSCK
I don't recall citing the words in my post as my own. Nor did I take credit for them.

Go find something better to do with your time.

ARE YOU FSCKING KIDDING ME?!

You completely represented them as your own.

You prefaced it with: "There should be a minimum IQ level required before posting on these forums."

You ought to be banned in my opinion. Do you know what PLAGERISM is? It's that thing that gets most people kicked out of school when they do it. It's that thing that gets researchers discredited when they do it. It's that thing that gets writers fired and sued when they do it.

You sir are an insult to this community.

-davidu

In case you edit your post so others cant see, here is what you said:


(from Manual FSCK)
There should be a minimum IQ level required before posting on these forums. You guys have no idea what your talking about.

We use the BGP anycast-method in our backbone, and have been doing so for a long time. Basically, we have multiple caching DNS-servers scattered around our network, but all of them use the same IP-adress (well, actually two - since customers expect to configure a primary and a secondary DNS on their computers).

The DNS resolvers all run zebra and identify themselves as a private AS, announcing two single host routes (the two DNS resolver-IP's) to the border-router they are connected to.

Our customers' DNS queries will be routed to the nearest available server, by the same mechanisms as any other hot-potato routing setup (i.e. MEDs). This works beautifully since we are only dealing with DNS UDP packets. (The servers do also have a unique IP adress for management traffic etc, and these are normally routed in the IGP - but they do not respond to DNS traffic on this IP).

That way, we have both "load-balancing" (customer queries are spread out to the servers who are closest to the customer) and redundancy - if one resolver fails, BGP will use the next available route to get to this prefix. Which can also be done over multiple AS numbers. Same concept, just as simple.

This is an extremely simple anycast setup for DNS servers, and potentially other simple UDP-based services, we have been using it for a couple of years, and it works beautifully. No new protocols, no complex setups, just normal BGP operation.



This is ripped from: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg01184.html

Now that the WHT people have proven their IQ (as if they needed to) Manual FSCK needs to go back to school. Elementary :D

Initial post edited. Are the WHT police happy now.

Originally posted by Manual FSCK
Initial post edited. Are the WHT police happy now.

No I'm not happy you moron.

You're like the guy in Good Will Hunting at the bar who tries to impress the ladies but is just reciting an experts commentary.

You said: "There should be a minimum IQ level required before posting on these forums."

Do you realize what an ass you made yourself look like?

And yet you haven't even apologized!

and what's worse, you STOLE something, blatently and don't even feel bad for it.

One of my professors told me about a student he had once who had taken a part of an essay from the year before and inserted it into hers as her own words but hadn't even taken the time to change the font. We both agreed that people like that need to just help out the genepool and not ever produce offspring.

I hope that you are more than a just "unix guru" and are a true "eunuchs guru."

-davidu

ps: not to get picky, but in your rant on the low IQ of this community you wrote "you're" as "your" which is not correct.

Originally posted by DavidU


ps: not to get picky, but in your rant on the low IQ of this community you wrote "you're" as "your" which is not correct.


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Originally posted by DavidU


No I'm not happy you moron.

You're like the guy in Good Will Hunting at the bar who tries to impress the ladies but is just reciting an experts commentary.

You said: "There should be a minimum IQ level required before posting on these forums."

Do you realize what an ass you made yourself look like?

And yet you haven't even apologized!

and what's worse, you STOLE something, blatently and don't even feel bad for it.

One of my professors told me about a student he had once who had taken a part of an essay from the year before and inserted it into hers as her own words but hadn't even taken the time to change the font. We both agreed that people like that need to just help out the genepool and not ever produce offspring.

I hope that you are more than a just "unix guru" and are a true "eunuchs guru."

-davidu

ps: not to get picky, but in your rant on the low IQ of this community you wrote "you're" as "your" which is not correct.

this is great stuff....

Okay, okay, that's enough. Quit bickering! :(

Originally posted by ToastyX
Okay, okay, that's enough. Quit bickering! :(

I guess but this idiot said I (we) were essentially morons and that we had no business posting while at the same time (we call this 'chutzpah') plagerizing a post from a technical user.

This guys a total phony and I think his IP (if static) should be banned.

If I had it my way:
:flamethr: :kaioken:

-davidu

You're like the guy in Good Will Hunting at the bar who tries to impress the ladies but is just reciting an experts commentary. You forgot to put at the end of you post:

"So how you like dem apples!" :)

Originally posted by RackMy.com
You forgot to put at the end of you post:

"So how you like dem apples!" :)

LOL :D