This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

RE: savannah trailing sources?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gcc-owner On Behalf Of Jeff Sturm
> Sent: 10 May 2004 03:18
> To: Christopher Faylor
> Cc: overseers ; gcc 
> Subject: Re: savannah trailing sources?
> On Sun, 9 May 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > There is a problem with slow propagation of the new IP address, of
> > course.  That's not a problem with specific services on the system,
> > though.
> Of course a long TTL exacerbates the problem.
>            86400   IN      A
> But, I'm guessing this isn't under your control either.  The TTL of
> is much more sane.
> Jeff

  Erm, [it's slightly ambiguous from your post whether you're showing an old
stale record still in DNS somewhere or if you're only pointing at the length
of the TTL from the new record on the assumption it was the same in the old
record as it is now] but if that's the old IP address, then the problem is
not one of long TTL, but of the authoritative server not having been
updated, since that's what is still reporting as the A record.

  And if that's the correct new IP address, then the problem isn't dns at
all, but that the machine is down, or there's some very bad routing info out
there, because traceroute to it dies for me at, which is
exactly where Kai Henningsen was reporting it to fail two days ago:

  8    26 ms    35 ms    29 ms
  9    46 ms    29 ms    27 ms
 10    29 ms    29 ms    29 ms []
 11   104 ms   116 ms   104 ms []
 12   121 ms   107 ms   107 ms
 13   108 ms   110 ms   113 ms
 14   116 ms   113 ms   113 ms []
 15   115 ms   113 ms   113 ms
 16     *        *        *     Request timed out.
 17     *        *        *     Request timed out.
 18     *        *        *     Request timed out.

  So if anyone out there still is able to access and isn't
having problems, their packets must be going by a different route to ours,
or there must be some selective filtering going on at that AT+T router.  It
would be great if someone who *can* access it would post a traceroute as

  My betting is that there's some bogus routing info out there.  It's been
two days, and I queried the authoritative server.  It's not a DNS thing any

Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]