Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
Strange. There are two Telewest IP's in the list:
62.31.176.39
193.38.113.3
Do you know which one you were using?
Original comment by helixblue
on 29 May 2010 at 7:51
Looking at the error messages I got back from a recent test, was it
194.117.134.19 ?
194.117.134.19 BlueYonder Tel GB 32 ms | www.facebook.com appears incorrect:
92.238.96.18,
static.ak.fbcdn.net appears incorrect: 92.238.96.18, NXDOMAIN Hijacking,
a.root-servers.net appears
incorrect: 92.238.96.18, google.com appears incorrect: 92.238.96.18,
www.google.com is hijacked:
92.238.96.18, windowsupdate.microsoft.com is hijacked: 92.238.96.18,
www.paypal.com is hijacked:
92.238.96.18, twitter.com appears incorrect: 92.238.96.18,
safebrowsing.clients.google.com appears
incorrect: 92.238.96.18, www.google-analytics.com appears incorrect:
92.238.96.18
We don't mark hijacking as a fatal issue for DNS servers, but perhaps we should
if they fail so many of them.
Original comment by helixblue
on 29 May 2010 at 7:55
sorry it was the BlueYonder GB (which is/used to be telewest, now Virgin)
194.117.134.19
- I use the IP it suggested above and reboot then browser message from Virgin
saying
these ones are no longer in use and to use new ones instead... when I use DNS
Benchmark program (not namebench) it also says the DNS im using is redundant
and that
NTT is fastest with 29ms avg - then when I set it to NTT and use your namebench
app
it says BlueYonder is 169% faster than NTT with 38ms avg ...?
im confused as how namebench can communicate with 194.117.134.19 when its
redundant?
Original comment by chunkyhu...@gmail.com
on 29 May 2010 at 8:01
This issue was closed by revision r910.
Original comment by thomas.r...@gmail.com
on 29 May 2010 at 8:06
Thanks! I've removed the bad DNS server from the listing, and updated the code
so that if a server hijacks too
many hosts (7+), that it is disabled.
The reason it was showing up as such a fast DNS server is because it was lying
about every request. We've never
seen this behaviour before, so it wasn't flagging the DNS server as completely
unable, and instead issued
warnings.
Both changes will appear in the 1.3-RC1 that will be uploaded later tonight.
Original comment by helixblue
on 29 May 2010 at 8:10
Fixed in 1.3-RC4
Original comment by helixblue
on 30 May 2010 at 11:18
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
chunkyhu...@gmail.com
on 29 May 2010 at 5:29