91–100 of 229 posts
Was just browsing a website where the first page of a query worked, but visiting page 2 of the results was returning a DNS error. Was curious how and why only part of the site was down, but it looks like this was the problem as now the whole site is down.
aren't short DNS TTLs great?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depending on what point you draw the line of "single point of failure" you could use multiple providers for your dns. GOV.UK for example uses both aws and gcp for DNS
So, NS entries pointing to both? But then take the example your domain was in Route53 and AWS goes down. You can't configure the NS entries to avoid AWS DNS servers. Is the idea that child DNS servers detect the outage and cache the values in the name server(s) that remain up? But then, the cached values from AWS take a while to clear, TTL never seems to be applied properly. It always feels like the worst case in suc…
(I don't know if this is how it works, but I thibk that's how it supposed to work)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's an interesting question, as it's always been solved on the server side. All of the current problem is client side. That is, client resolvers that aren't using diverse providers, and only do things like round-robin with long timeouts.
Anycast for the DNS IPs deals with most of the problems of clients not failing over elegantly when their primary DNS server is broken.
Well it's been an hour now since I first noticed the effects and their service status still has no useful information or ETA for a fix. It's just an "emerging issue".
Serious question, has anyone properly solved the issue of DNS as a single point of failure?
https://namebase.io is a "registrar" for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depending on what point you draw the line of "single point of failure" you could use multiple providers for your dns. GOV.UK for example uses both aws and gcp for DNS
So, NS entries pointing to both? But then take the example your domain was in Route53 and AWS goes down. You can't configure the NS entries to avoid AWS DNS servers. Is the idea that child DNS servers detect the outage and cache the values in the name server(s) that remain up? But then, the cached values from AWS take a while to clear, TTL never seems to be applied properly. It always feels like the worst case in suc…
I am surprised financial institutions don't have any regulation for redundancy. The one that stuck out to me is the Navy Federal Credit Union website being down. I have not had any issues logging into mobile though for some of the reported sites.
(a component of my consulting work is reporting to financial regulators for institutions)
You can see this on a lot of sites right now. You get the Akamai style error with something like: Reference: #11.453a2f17.1393u44848484.3aee33433 At the bottom of a very bland looking error page.
What's frustrating is that DNS is returning an address, instead of just failing, and so macos is caching that value (though it might be cloudflare doing that).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depending on what point you draw the line of "single point of failure" you could use multiple providers for your dns. GOV.UK for example uses both aws and gcp for DNS
So, NS entries pointing to both? But then take the example your domain was in Route53 and AWS goes down. You can't configure the NS entries to avoid AWS DNS servers. Is the idea that child DNS servers detect the outage and cache the values in the name server(s) that remain up? But then, the cached values from AWS take a while to clear, TTL never seems to be applied properly. It always feels like the worst case in suc…
Of course that requires the server to properly fail, i.e. stop responding to requests. That doesn't seem to be the case here