Skip to main content

nameserver - Vanity name servers with .no domains

itemprop="text">


I created vanity name
servers e.g. ns1.example.com and ns2.example.com that are just maskеа and are pointed to
rackspace free dns service. In other words ns1.example.com points to
dns1.stabletransit.com and ns2.example.com points to
dns2.stabletransit.com(stabletransit.com are rackspace's nameservers). In general it
works fine and I can forward domains to ns1.example.com and they will work correctly and
redirected to dns1.stabletransit.com. However for .no(norway) domains I stumbled into
the following error:



 The
            nameserver ns1.example.com is not correctly configured. It has the following NS records
            in the zone file for somedomain.no:

 dns1.stabletransit.com
            dns2.stabletransit.com

This does not correspond with the
            nameservers you have entered, which are:

 ns1.example.com
            ns2.example.com


The list you enter must be identical to
            the list of NS records returned by each nameserver on the list.

For
            .no domains the nameservers must be configured correctly before the delegation can be
            completed. Not all ISPs are aware of this. Please contact the administrators of the
            nameservers you are trying to use, and ask them to create a valid zone file for
            somedomain.no on all the
            nameservers.


This is
the error message that I got when I try to point .no domains to my vanity name servers.
I will be thanlful if someone can expain why this happens and how can I fix it. As far
as I understand this is a correct way to mask name servers by creating vanity name
servers, so I'm not sure where I'm
mistaken.



Thanks in advance for any
help!



Answer




This is because the "real" nameserver for
the domain tells that dns1.sabletransit.com and
dns2.stabletransit.com are the authoritative nameservers for
this domain. (NS record)




The .no
registry seems to check this.



I don't think
rackspace free dns allows you to change this, so I don't think there's anything you can
do.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?
Post a Comment
Read more

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,
Post a Comment
Read more

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able
Post a Comment
Read more