Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet

.org Registry Offline - Not 224

Posted by Hemos
from the bit-an-oops dept.
einer writes "According to the The Register, the registry containing all of the .org tld information has fallen off the planet. The article is light on details, and doesn't list any potential consequences. " It looks like it's the server that maintains the records for who owns what .org domain - and a big "I Told You So" for Verisign. And of course, now it seems to be working just fine. Good work, PIR.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

.org Registry Offline - Not

Comments Filter:
  • So what. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Prince_Ali (614163) on Monday May 19, 2003 @09:44AM (#5990999) Journal
    I make it a point to never visit any .org sites at all. Vile things, they are. I haven't visited a single .org website in over 2 years.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 19, 2003 @09:45AM (#5991003)

    Because you never know where to find a good orgy....
  • whois still working (Score:5, Informative)

    by drwtsn32 (674346) on Monday May 19, 2003 @09:45AM (#5991004)
    I just did a whois query on my org domain. It works fine.
    • by Gortbusters.org (637314) on Monday May 19, 2003 @10:49AM (#5991391) Homepage Journal
      In other words, this was a horrible article to post.
    • by madprof (4723) on Monday May 19, 2003 @11:18AM (#5991529)
      Of course! The article has been pulled from teh front page because the service was NEVER down in the first place.
      The whois server that Simon Perry used to check if his domain was up was owned by Verisign. Which doesn't cary any .org information.
      Simon, being incredibly stupid, doesn't understand what "The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .EDU domains and Registrars" means.
      Neither do The Register it seems. More great reporting from that high quality news source....
      • by _xeno_ (155264) on Monday May 19, 2003 @12:49PM (#5992180) Homepage Journal
        The Register is not a very trustworthy news source. I used to think they were mostly OK, but then I read Gates: 'Wake up and steal the coffee' [theregister.co.uk], which is seven paragraphs slamming Bill Gates for leaving a coffee shop without paying. Followed by three paragraphs saying effectively "oh, the above is false, but we wanted to report it anyway."

        I mean, really. A full-page article alledging that Bill Gates is so full of himself that he forgot that he has to pay for things like the rest of us proles, and then three-paragraph correction reporting that the above story isn't true. It's rediculous! At least Slashdot (usually) posts the update to the top paragraph and highlights it. But reporting something that you know isn't true and then containing the correct right within the story is such bad journalism as to border on the rediculous.

        I suppose they've been taking the BOFH over-seriously there. Outright lieing is OK for Simon, since he's a fictional character and expected to be a bastard. But for a supposed news article - one that doesn't even have anything to do with technology, only a press conference gone awry, it is just do dishonest to try and libel someone simply because you disagree with his policies.

        I lost a lot of confidence in the Register with that story. I know they have an overly mocking style and that they tend to attack everyone and everything simply as part of their style. But doing so with a story you know if false is unfair and lowers you to the level of mindless zealot. - (X)

        * I suppose I'm being overly harsh; the story was originally posted without the correction and the correction was only added later after they found out that the story was false. But I still think they should have included a note at the top. Hardly seems fair to mention it only at the very bottom, does it?

      • Actually I belive their was a real 'issue' (I hesitate to use the word 'problem') this afernoon (at least at around 12:47 BST), and it was fixed at that time.

        It seems there is disagreement and confusion around what the problem was, but there was one, and something was done to aleviate it not much more than a minute after this article was posted. I think a lot of people where confused as to what was, but I think I might be able to shed a rather dim light on it. Unhelpfully, I can't tell you what the issue w
        • Interesting.

          That seems a separate problem that would point to Tucows as the "nexus" of the problem.

          If you're running a recent whois, it should hit whois.publicinterestregistry.net looking for slashdot.org. That whois server will "fess up" to part of the info, but fundamentally forward you to whois.opensrs.net , which is where the authoritative whois info resides.

          The question is, what was the "broken" entry? If it said "NONAUTHORITATIVE," which I'd expect, then that indicates that you got vali

          • Interesting.

            FWIW the 'broken' entry wasn't NONAUTHORITATIVE, it was something (and I use the term loosely) like:

            >whois slashdot.org

            usual discalimer was here...

            Domain: slashdot.org
            ???: ????
            ???: CX=0
            ???: ????

            I can't remember what the CX=0 error was exactly, or what the '???'s were (hindsight being 20/20 I wish I had been paying more attention). I was a distinctly odd error though, and it did happen identically, twice, between valid returns of a .com.

            I totally agree that it doesn't seem to have ever
    • The whois, the public services may not be tied in directly to the interfaces for registration and other operations (NS changes, contact changes).

      Two different protocols. If you had some way of triggering an EPP command (registryregistrar protocol) and show both are up, I'd be a bit more at ease. To be truthful, PIR/Afilias are doing a poor job of running .org. Affilias does well with .info etc.. but .org is really bad.
    • by Christopher B. Brown (1267) <cbbrowne@gmail.com> on Monday May 19, 2003 @12:33PM (#5992063) Homepage
      Strange...

      I never got paged about it, and I certainly would have had things gone down.

      It seems more plausible that the problem stems from an out-of-date version of whois.

      Version 4.6.2 (released in March) introduced a "patch" redirecting .ORG requests to whois.publicinterestregistry.net ; I'd suggest you check version numbers. Chances are that you're running something reasonably new.

      It's plausible that VGRS might have been forwarding requests over to PIR, and shut that capability off this weekend, thereby causing "some inconvenience" to those using out-of-date whois clients.

      Taking a look at the posts that led to the Register article, it appears that they headed down a garden path rather like this:

      • "We're having a problem; perhaps it's one of several things" to
      • "Now, we're publishing an article, with the wildest conspiracy theory we can imagine!", namely
        The registry for all .org domains appears to have collapsed - meaning that all the details of who owns any .org domain are unobtainable.

      Alternatively, perhaps CRSNIC, the putative point of failure, is having a problem?

      • TheReg owes you and PIR a personal apology for saying you guys were "sloppy." The fact that the article went ahead full speed isn't so bothersome, it was the aspersions cast by TheReg, then not recalled that seems to be truly unprofessional here. Their correction is still incorrect, just less insultingly so.
  • oh no! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 19, 2003 @09:45AM (#5991008)
    now I can't lookup slashdot.org anymore.
  • Uh oh... (Score:4, Funny)

    by fredrikj (629833) on Monday May 19, 2003 @09:45AM (#5991011) Homepage
    ...in a few hours, slashdot.org will redirect to microsoft.com or riaa.com...
  • Huh?? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by muyuubyou (621373) on Monday May 19, 2003 @09:45AM (#5991014)
    And I thought the blender.org era was a good thing... Things like this support the corporate credibility in the IT ages. *sigh*
  • Since I own several .org domains, this concerns me. Good that it's all still working.

    One thing puzzles me though, isn't ISOC managing .org nowadays? Or are they still going to? At any rate, I think ISOC will do a better job than Verisign will ever do anyday.

  • by mschoolbus (627182) <travisriley@gm a i l . com> on Monday May 19, 2003 @09:46AM (#5991020)
    Verisign licensed SCO's Unix Source code on Monday...
  • Patriot Act (Score:1, Funny)

    by sokkelih (632304)
    Terrorist .Org-anizations.
  • Lol. (Score:1, Funny)

    by BoomerSooner (308737)
    This is why everything should still be IP based! (j/k)
  • whois slashdot.org (Score:5, Informative)

    by samhalliday (653858) on Monday May 19, 2003 @09:47AM (#5991029) Homepage Journal
    whois slashdot.org

    Found referral to whois.opensrs.net.

    Registrant:

    VA Software Corporation (OSDN)

    47071 Bayside Parkway

    Fremont, CA 94538

    US

    Domain name: SLASHDOT.ORG

    i guess it will take a while for this to filter down the servers... how long does anyone guess it will be before we cant whois .org; and will this affect DNS??? that coudl be a REAL disaster!
    • 66.35.250.150 slashdot.org
      198.186.202.135 NS1.VASOFTWARE.COM
      198.186.202.136 NS2.VASOFTWARE.COM
      66.35.250.12 NS3.VASOFTWARE.COM

      Then your life can continue as normal, despite verisign's fuckup.

      the AC
      • if you want to use NS1.VASOFTWARE.COM as a nameserver, should you not enter this as

        nameserver 198.186.202.135

        in /etc/resolv.conf?? and it wasnt verisign's fuckup anyway.. if you read the article you would have seen it was PIR's fault. in fact; they didnt even notice the servers had fallen... verisign gave up the control on new years day.

        • If you were going to use it as your nameserver then yes, you would. But that's not what the parent was saying.

          As it happens, you shouldn't be doing this at all. It's unecessary traffic. Your DNS server should always be close. In fact some authoritative name servers don't even do recursive lookups to prevent the sort of (ab)use that you suggested.

          But it's moot really. This doesn't affect DNS.

          People: If this is an issue at all (I see nothing wrong anywhere [maybe PIR got them back up?] and I don't exa
  • .cx (Score:5, Funny)

    by Arc04 (601196) on Monday May 19, 2003 @09:48AM (#5991038)
    Just be thankful all .cx domains are still available.

    I don't know if I could make it through the day without a trip to a certain site. :P
  • by jrwilk01 (88081) on Monday May 19, 2003 @09:48AM (#5991040)
    Responsible servers changed, all is well. Nothing to see here. Move along.

    jrw@gerontius:~$ whois slashdot.org
    NOTICE: Access to .ORG WHOIS information is provided to assist persons in
    determining the contents of a domain name registration record in the PIR
    registry database. The data in this record is provided by Public Interest Registry
    for informational purposes only, and PIR does not guarantee its
    accuracy. This service is intended only for query-based access. You agree
    that you will use this data only for lawful purposes and that, under no
    circumstances will you use this data to: (a) allow, enable, or otherwise
    support the transmission by e-mail, telephone, or facsimile of mass
    unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations to entities other than
    the data recipient's own existing customers; or (b) enable high volume,
    automated, electronic processes that send queries or data to the systems of
    Registry Operator or any ICANN-Accredited Registrar, except as reasonably
    necessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations. All
    rights reserved. PIR reserves the right to modify these terms at any
    time. By submitting this query, you agree to abide by this policy.

    Domain ID:D2289308-LROR
    Domain Name:SLASHDOT.ORG
    Created On:05-Oct-1997 04:00:00 UTC
    Last Updated On:15-Jan-2003 01:48:23 UTC
    Expiration Date:04-Oct-2005 04:00:00 UTC
    Sponsoring Registrar:R11-LROR
    Status:OK
    Registrant ID:11-C
    Registrant Name:SEE SPONSORING REGISTRAR
    Registrant Street1:Whois Server:whois.opensrs.net
    Registrant Street2:Referral URL:www.opensrs.org
    Registrant City:N/A
    Registrant Postal Code:N/A
    Registrant Country:CA
    Registrant Email:not@available.org
    Admin ID:11-C
    Admin Name:SEE SPONSORING REGISTRAR
    Admin Street1:Whois Server:whois.opensrs.net
    Admin Street2:Referral URL:www.opensrs.org
    Admin City:N/A
    Admin Postal Code:N/A
    Admin Country:CA
    Admin Email:not@available.org
    Billing ID:11-C
    Billing Name:SEE SPONSORING REGISTRAR
    Billing Street1:Whois Server:whois.opensrs.net
    Billing Street2:Referral URL:www.opensrs.org
    Billing City:N/A
    Billing Postal Code:N/A
    Billing Country:CA
    Billing Email:not@available.org
    Tech ID:11-C
    Tech Name:SEE SPONSORING REGISTRAR
    Tech Street1:Whois Server:whois.opensrs.net
    Tech Street2:Referral URL:www.opensrs.org
    Tech City:N/A
    Tech Postal Code:N/A
    Tech Country:CA
    Tech Email:not@available.org
    Name Server:NS1.VASOFTWARE.COM
    Name Server:NS2.VASOFTWARE.COM
    Name Server:NS3.VASOFTWARE.COM
  • Don't hit OSS (Score:4, Interesting)

    by thosss (649351) on Monday May 19, 2003 @09:48AM (#5991045)
    I just hope that MS and others don't hit up OSS for this; the .org registry was the first to run a non Oracle\MS SQL\DB2 database (it runs/ran Postgre). I don't want Postgre to be the underlying problem in this because it could easily destroy their reputation.
    • Re:Don't hit OSS (Score:3, Informative)

      by mukund (163654)
      I think the .org always worked, but the whois software's configuration which theregister.co.uk uses may be outdated and is still asking the Verisign servers for .org information.

      With a new whois installation, PIR's servers are contacted instead (whois.publicinterestregistry.net).

      With an old configured version of whois, one might try:

      whois -h whois.publicinterestregistry.net domain.org

    • They have a saying in Russian that translates to:

      "If shoe fits, wear it."

  • Flame if you will. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FreeLinux (555387) on Monday May 19, 2003 @09:49AM (#5991049)
    But, this was a concern when the whole TLD split-up was initially suggested. I'm no fan of Verisign but, Network Solutions and Verisign ran a tight ship. This type of thing just didn't happen. ICANN made a big mistake with their breakup of the registrars and this is likely to become a frequent problem.

    The worst part is, with the way the resgistrars are distributed now, the blame game is going to be rediculous with everyone pointing at the other guy. In the past there was no question as to who was responsible for any issues.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Umm, with all due respect, VeriSign isn't bad, but Network Solutions ain't exactly what I or anyone I know would call a "tight ship"....
      • Hear Hear. Network Solutions routinely "loses" information. That said, it never "lost" an entire domain, but still, screwing thousands of little guys isn't the best service either. I can't speak for Verisign.

    • You are correct about Verisign as a registry. They use RRP for all registrar/registry communication, more efficient, less bloated than other EPP implementations (e.g. .biz, .info). PIR uses a totally new & different implementation of EPP, making all registrars who want to service .org domains patch or rewrite entire systems so it can fit this new implementation. .org has been nothing but pathetic since PIR took over.

      Gotta love the current screwed up state of whois data for .org also: Whois output fo [whois.net]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 19, 2003 @09:49AM (#5991052)
    Why do we have to have a system that relies on single points of failure for each of the main TLDs? Each "maintainer" of the TLD is subject to problems - both mechanical (system failures, congestion, etc.) and human (stupidity, politics, luck).

    I don't think the founding fathers of the Internet thought it of it being like this.
  • looks like monopolies aren't fun for just microsoft. now we all feel the brunt.

    Mike
  • whats wrong? (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    And not long ago I read the .org was switching to PostgreSQL from DB2 for keeping zone info.. might be a corrupt postgresql database ?
    • I got it. If you would do whoising them for mysql.org domain then the system will choke :)

      ... just kidding. I think nothing wrong neither with PostgreSQL nor with .ORG registrar. What's wrong is what's with /. editors letting through such crazy "news".

  • by crazyprogrammer (412543) on Monday May 19, 2003 @09:51AM (#5991065) Homepage
    the .org tld information has fallen off the planet.


    I knew the earth was flat but nobody believed me.
  • Here's mine (Score:3, Interesting)

    by flacco (324089) on Monday May 19, 2003 @09:53AM (#5991079)
    [root@weaselfarm] whois slashdot.org
    [whois.crsnic.net]

    Whois Server Version 1.3

    Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
    with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
    for detailed information.

    No match for "SLASHDOT.ORG".

    >>> Last update of whois database: Mon, 19 May 2003 06:05:55 EDT <<<

    • Re:Here's mine (Score:3, Informative)

      by geirt (55254)
      Use the right whois server:

      whois -h whois.pir.org slashdot.org

      [whois.pir.org]
      NOTICE: Access to .ORG WHOIS information is provided to assist persons in
      determining the contents of a domain name registration record in the PIR
      registry database. The data in this record is provided by Public Interest Registry
      for informational purposes only, and PIR does not guarantee its
      accuracy. This service is intended only for query-based access. You agree
      that you will use this data only for lawful purposes and that, under n
    • Whois Server Version 1.3

      And on my machine:

      $ whois --version
      Version 4.6.3.


      Am I missing something here? Is your version HORIDLY out of date?
  • by sparkes (125299) on Monday May 19, 2003 @09:54AM (#5991083) Homepage Journal
    bags I get to name to problem;-)

    not quite as bad as the day the internet died as all it means in real terms is a few people will try to buy domain names that arn't available.

    anyone want to buy slashdot.org?

    http://www.domaincity.co.uk/cgi-bin/whois.pl?typ e= org&command=slashdot

    it seems to be for sale, or maybe not

    sparkes
  • Mine wont whois! (Score:3, Informative)

    by PoesRaven (623777) on Monday May 19, 2003 @09:55AM (#5991087)
    whois slashdot.org
    [whois.crsnic.net]

    Whois Server Version 1.3

    Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
    with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
    for detailed information.

    No match for "SLASHDOT.ORG".

    >>> Last update of whois database: Mon, 19 May 2003 06:05:55 EDT
    • ok, let's read the output again, shall we? :)

      $ whois -h whois.crsnic.net slashdot.org

      [foobar]

      No match for "SLASHDOT.ORG".

      [bazqux]

      The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .EDU domains and Registrars.

  • by jmb-d (322230) on Monday May 19, 2003 @10:06AM (#5991149) Homepage Journal
    And of course, now it seems to be working just fine.

    The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

    Oh, wait...
  • No Surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kellan1 (23372) on Monday May 19, 2003 @10:06AM (#5991155) Homepage
    Anyone who followed the .Org bidding process knew this day was coming. ICANN's summary dismissal of the IMS/ISC bid [resource.org] as being too technical ("Internet is hard", says ICANN) in favor of 2-bit registrars who "white washed" their record by getting a major NGO to sit on the board made it inevitable.
  • by Jerk City Troll (661616) on Monday May 19, 2003 @10:08AM (#5991166) Homepage
    Here's journalistic integrity for you: a story that reports you cannot reach .org sites posted on and read from a .org site. That's like posting: "you are unable to read this message." Way to go guys.
    • by bilbobuggins (535860) <bilbobuggins@@@juntjunt...com> on Monday May 19, 2003 @11:21AM (#5991550)
      speaking of journalistic integrity, did you see the article title?
      reading it, i couldn't help but imagine the discovery of this news at /. went something like this:

      h: 'oh man, .org is down'
      t: 'no way'
      h: 'way'
      t: 'no way'
      h: 'way'
      t: 'duuuuude. like, slashdot is totally a .org site. bogus!'
      h: 'like for real brah. and i was completely about to make some righteous nachos before this happened!'
      t: 'oh wait it's back! tubular!'
      h: 'schweet. check me out while i post this totally rad story on our site!'

  • by borgdows (599861) on Monday May 19, 2003 @10:08AM (#5991167)
    All our bases belong to them!!

    Check by yourself :

    $ whois slashdot.org

    Found referral to whois.opensrs.net.

    Registrant:
    Microsoft Corporation
    One Microsoft Way
    Redmond, WA 98052
    US

    Domain name: SLASHDOT.ORG

    (...)
  • http://www.pir.org/whois/ I ran a few whois queries straight off of pir's site, so the information is still floating around somewhere.....
  • Boston data line cut (Score:2, Interesting)

    by vasqzr (619165)
    Related? [boston.com]
  • by SimonPerry (663701) on Monday May 19, 2003 @10:27AM (#5991264)
    I was the source for the story on The Register. You'll see in the detail [simonperry.org] that it depends on which whois server you use. Crsnic is the one that's misreporting and it's supposed to be provide united results. Looks like PIR isn't talking to Crsnic properly.
    • by Zocalo (252965) on Monday May 19, 2003 @10:55AM (#5991416) Homepage
      Looks like PIR isn't talking to Crsnic properly.

      As you state in your linked page, CRSNIC is run by Verisign. The same Verisign that handed .org prior to PIR and agreed to a three month handoff period from the start of the year. That would make the cut off March 31st or April 1st depending on your sense of humour. Which, it should come as no suprise, was the date that CRSNIC also stopped providing WHOIS info for .org domains.

      I also notice that the Register story has been removed from the frontpage, although the direct link is still available. I think we can safely file this under "Death of .org predicted. Film at eleven."

      • by Sxooter (29722) on Monday May 19, 2003 @11:09AM (#5991478)
        No matter how long it was on the front page, this article sullied the reputation of the .org folks, and they deserve an apology and a retraction.

        Unless, of course, the Reg doesn't take responsibility for what it publishes. Like a lot of so called "news" sites out there. Heck, even slashdot posts retractions once in a blue moon or two.
    • Looks like PIR isn't talking to Crsnic properly.
      Apparently you can't imagine it being the other way around?
  • Hoorray!!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by borgdows (599861) on Monday May 19, 2003 @10:30AM (#5991279)
    Slashdot.org is not accessible any more!
    The productivity of my IT company will rise rise riiiise!!
  • Irony: (Score:4, Funny)

    by Illserve (56215) on Monday May 19, 2003 @10:34AM (#5991297)
    A news site posting a story that it's gone down.
  • by cloudscout (104011) on Monday May 19, 2003 @10:34AM (#5991303) Homepage
    This problem has been around for months... In order to look up WHOIS information on .ORG domains, you have to point your WHOIS client at whois.pir.org. For some reason, whois.internic.net isn't redirecting the appropriate information. I first noticed the problem back in early March.
  • Never down? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Dasigner (670983) on Monday May 19, 2003 @10:35AM (#5991310)

    I don't think the .org registry ever went down. The only Informative message here (IMHO) was from jrwilk01: "Responsible servers changed, all is well. Nothing to see here. Move along." It was marked Redundant and scored 0, just because the moderators only saw the whois record!

    Those of you with obsolete whois clients can do something like this:

    $ whois slashdot.org@whois.publicinterestregistry.org
    ...
    Billing Street1:Whois Server:whois.opensrs.net
    ...
    $ whois slashdot.org@whois.opensrs.net

    Or just go to whois.bw.org [bw.org].

    • I am afraid you're right on spot. The only ones reporting about it seem to be slashdot and the register. Check Google news [google.com]. It seems a completely bogus story to me.
  • by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Monday May 19, 2003 @10:35AM (#5991312)
    I wanted to check it out, but to be extra sure, I went to org.org.org.org [org.org] (better four .orgs than one to be extra sure) : what do I find ? A DEBIAN BOX ! That computer has been taken over by Debian ! It's Stallman's evil plot to take over .org !!

  • I did a who is and I got this:

    Domain ID:D2289308-LROR
    Domain Name:SLASHDOT.ORG
    Created On:05-Oct-1997 04:00:00 UTC
    Last Updated On:15-Jan-2003 01:48:23 UTC
    Expiration Date:04-Oct-2005 04:00:00 UTC
    Sponsoring Registrar:R11-LROR
    Status:OK
    Registrant ID:11-C
    Registrant Name:SEE SPONSORING REGISTRAR
    Registrant Street1:Whois Server:whois.opensrs.net
    Registrant Street2:Referral URL:www.opensrs.org
    Registrant City:N/A
    Registrant Postal Code:N/A
    Registrant Country:CA
    Registrant Email:not@available.org

    It loo
  • by transiit (33489) on Monday May 19, 2003 @10:41AM (#5991346) Homepage Journal
    Because whois queries for .org's dropped off months ago for me.
    transiit@machine$: whois slashdot.org

    .
    .
    . (big versign legal statement)
    The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .EDU domains and Registrars.
    oops. No .ORG there. I can't help but think the Reg happened to try a whois and not getting an answer freaked out. Note the total lack of explanatory detail.

    I wouldn't go villifying anyone just yet.

    -transiit
  • Ooops... (Score:2, Informative)

    by MattRog (527508)
    Maybe they should've picked a DBMS with replication [slashdot.org] (no, not MySQL).
    • You mean like THESE replicators???

      Astroturfer.

      PostgresSQL Replicator - http://pgreplicator.sourceforge.net/
      An asynchronous replica engine that provides some data ownership models and many conflict resolution algorithms. [open source, GNU License]
      Rserv - http://techdocs.postgresql.org/installguides.php# r serv
      Installation guide for triggers to provide Master/Slave replication.
      Usogres - http://usogres.good-day.net/
      Real time backup utility.
      eRServer - http://www.erserver.com/
      Enterprise replication se
  • by rjamestaylor (117847) <rjamestaylor@gmail.com> on Monday May 19, 2003 @10:55AM (#5991417) Homepage Journal
    Looks like Jason Blair got picked up by The Register for this story. First Peter Arnett gets picked up by a UK Tabloid, now this. Those wacky Britts!
  • BOGUS REPORT (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Medievalist (16032) on Monday May 19, 2003 @10:59AM (#5991433)
    My .org domain ran fine all weekend. I do not believe there is any issue of real importance behind all this fooferaw.

    You can't "whois" a .org domain without specifying a valid .org whois server. THE SKY IS FALLING! Guess what, you can't whois a .mil domain without specifying a valid .mil whois server. Nothing to report here, system works as advertised.

    The important function of a registrar is to feed names into the root nameservers. I don't see any indication of any flaws in that process. All the .org names seem to resolve fine, and I got a total of ZERO problem reports over the weekend from our 24x7 .org site. Did anyone else have a real DNS problem, or is this all a case of the Register placing too much value on the compiled-in defaults for the whois client?

    Anyone?

    • Re:BOGUS REPORT (Score:2, Informative)

      by zdislaw (664912)
      DNS is fine. The servers holding the registry of name ownership are what the article claimings fell over. The article doesn't mention anything about DNS problems or people being unable to browse to .org sites. I'm certainly not saying the report is true, but if what they say happened did indeed happen, DNS would not necessarily be affected.
    • I had a problem last weekend with CougaarForge [cougaar.org] - for some reason the parent domain got redirected to a placeholder page. After a bunch of phone calls they switched it back, but it was most definitely hosed up for most of the weekend...

      Yours,

      Tom

  • by Sxooter (29722) on Monday May 19, 2003 @11:20AM (#5991542)
    Apparently, we're all dumb as lamp posts and can't bother to read the part of the whois query on our boxes that says this whois server only handles .net and .com

    We're going to go back to school, we should be ready to post articles worth reading in a few short years, til then, there's always the BBC, eh?
  • It would appear that, although the original story is still available at the full URL, the Register has taken down all links to it from other areas of the site.

    This would be the same site whose journalists often raise an almighty fuss when other publications do exactly the same thing.

    I guess they're not double standards when they're your double standards.
  • When they thought the problem was .org, before checkig any actual facts, they said this about them:

    "Which it is all very sloppy and doesn't exactly encourage confidence in the company that now runs the .org domain - Public Interest Registry."

    when they published their "correction" http://theregister.co.uk/content/6/30764.html they said this about verisign / NSI:

    "VeriSign's crsnic Whois servers are having trouble. There was some problem with .net addresses at the weekend. It has therefore concentrated on g

COBOL is for morons. -- E.W. Dijkstra

Working...