Issue reg changing the existing name server to a new name server
Kevin Darcy
kcd at daimlerchrysler.com
Mon Jun 18 22:35:31 UTC 2007
This is clearly a matter between you and your ISP.
The only thing I'll point out, is that if the name of a nameserver is
*in* the domain which is delegated to it, e.g. example.in delegated to
ns1.example.in, then the registry needs to know *both* the name *and*
the IP address, so that it can give out the appropriate glue records.
Therefore, if your ISP is only asking for one of those things, either a)
they are implicitly *forbidding* that the name of the nameserver be in
the domain being delegated, or b) they are relying on other methods
(which might include out-of-band methods such as email or phone calls)
to translate the name to an IP address or _vice_versa_.
- Kevin
query wrote:
> Hi All,
> My organisation registered a domain name under the .in domain.
> After that we found that new domian name was successfully registered
> and it was hosted by the
> ISP itself.
> The issue here is that my organisation wants to host the domain name
> themselves . For that there is some provision
> in the ISP's website to change the name server record.
>
> But it is asking only for the hostname of the new name server . There I
> can give either the hostname or ip
> address of the new name server.
>
> I was just wondering if I provide only the ip address or hostname but not
> both, then whether my domain name
> will be resolved at the Internet.
> What I understand is that by asking the ISP to change the name server
> record to a new name server that will
> be hosted by us, it will be like the ISP has delegated the authority of the
> domain name to our organisation.
> But for that , the ISP needs to add a glue record for our name server which
> will consist of both name server and
> its corresponding ip address.
> But the ISP is asking for only one of them .
>
> So , please clarify my doubt that if I provide either the hostname or ip
> address , will my domain name will be resolved in internet.
>
>
> regards
>
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the bind-users
mailing list