Domain Name Registrar vs. Webcountry Hosting...Who do I believe?

[Mathias Körber]

I did not follow this thread, but see below!

> Okay, so it seems that Webcountry still refuse to play ball and I'm =
locked
> into a 12-month pre-paid contract. They advertise via their site that =
they
> support all foreign domain names and they instruct their clients to =
use
> server.webcountry.net and ns2.webcountry.net as the nameservers but =
using
> nslookup both nameservers respond that the nameserver delegated=20
> for my zone
> is in fact www.webcountry.net .
>=20
> nslookup -q=3Dall internethosting.co.za server.webcountry.net
> nslookup -q=3Dall internethosting.co.za ns2.webcountry.net

Hmm. If I look up the NS records for internethosting.co.za, I get:

;; ANSWER SECTION:
internethosting.co.za.  23h59m21s IN CNAME  infosite.co.za.
infosite.co.za.         1D IN NS        ns2.surgeons.co.za.
infosite.co.za.         1D IN NS        ns1.surgeons.co.za.

the ZA whois page bears this out, but shows the domain as unpaid
and w/o NS records:
	http://co.za/cgi-bin/whois.sh?Domain=3Dinternethosting.co.za

There is no mentioning of webcountry etc.

Looks to me that the 'ownership' of this domain is in question
(unless I missed something else before)

>=20
> I have brought this to Webcountry's attention, and their response was
> basically the following:
>=20
> * that's the way we do it
> * if it's good enough for 11 000+ clients, it will have to be good =
enough
> for you.
> * our nameservers are set up to ICANN specifications
> * tell your domain name registrar to delegate the domain manually
>=20
> Both server.webcountry.net and ns2.webcountry.net respond with
> www.webcountry.net as the nameserver for my domain.
>=20
> 1. Does this mean that Webcountry has supplied me with two=20
> nameservers that
> are the same physical machine?
>=20
> 2. Must hosting companies supply two nameservers as a question of=20
> ethics or
> law? May they reside on the same physical machine?
>=20
> 3. Can I get a free secondary nameserver for the site? Should I even
> consider this?
>=20
> 4. Webcountry is registered with the Better Business Bereau in the US. =
Are
> these grounds enough to register a complaint and demand a refund?
>=20
> Unfortunately, I am locked into a 12-month pre-paid contract so I =
really
> need to resolve this. The fact is that this has taken 9 days so far =
and
> Webcountry hasn't acknowledged that there is a problem on their=20
> side. I show
> them snlookup results and their attitude is like, "and so?". If they =
were
> prepared to fix this up on their side I could overlook everything, but =
it
> seems that they just couldn't care less.
>=20
> Grant
>=20
>=20
> Bill Manning wrote in message <200011091727.JAA14582 at zed.isi.edu>...
> >
> >% Both sides are just hurling technical gobbledygook at me and=20
> blaming each
> >% other. Has anyone got technical experience in this? Who do I=20
> believe? Any
> >% advice appreciated...
> >%
> >% thanx
> >%
> >% Grant
> >
> > For the domains I manage, I use the old format of ensuring
> > the servers for the requested delegation are authoritative
> > -prior- to making the delegation. This ensures a reduction
> > in the number of lame delegations. Folks in the domain
> > hosting biz tend to be driven by fees for domains hosted,
> > and there is less care that a delegation actually works.
> >
> > Potentially some useful advice:
> >
> > %dig <yourdomainhere> ns @<each one of the servers for the =
delegation>
> >
> > will show if each of them is set up properly.
> >
> > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-185.html#chapter5
> >
> >Prior to the delegation of domain name zones (e.g. "cat.edu"), the =
person
> or
> >organisation to whom authority over the zone is delegated agrees=20
> to provide
> >some key services necessary to support domain names extending from =
the
> zone.
> >
> >When a ... zone is delegated ..., care should of course be taken in =
the
> proper
> >construction of the DNS configuration files for the zone. Known =
pitfalls
> and
> >some useful tips for avoiding them can be found in (RFC 1912 =
[Barr96a]).
> >
> >For each zone, a secondary server must be set up to improve the=20
> reliability
> of
> >the database under adverse conditions. To increase the=20
> probability that the
> >secondary server can be reached if the primary server becomes=20
> unavailable,
> the
> >secondary server is required to be on a subnet physically separated =
from
> the
> >primary server.
> >
> >
> >--
> >--bill
> >
> >
> >
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20