Hi

I would like to know if I got some things right or not. You are the
experts so that's why I'm asking

Ok, so let's say I've registered a domain: example.com (and let's say
that regestrar's name is ARegistrar).

During the registration, new RRs (of type NS) were created on the
namservers of the com domain and I got access (via my registrars panel)
to change contents of those RRs. Is this right?

Still I need a service called DNS hosting, right?

Fortunately ARegistrar offers free DNS hosting to its clients, so during
the registration process, ARegistrar filled NS RRs on nameservers of com
domain with names of its nameservers - such as ns1.aregistrar.net
(primary) and ns2.aregistrar.net (secondary). Still correct?

So this newly created RRs say that the nameservers for example.com are
ns1.aregistrar.net (primary) and ns1.aregistrar.net (secondary), but
this information is not authoritative. Right?

The authoritative information about example.com resides on ARegistrar's
nameservers (ns1.aregistrar.net, ns2.aregistrar.net) in the form of NS
RRs (so the ns1.aregistrar.net says that it is a nameserver for
example.com). Right?

So it possible for me to change nameservers for my domain any time by
changing the NS RRs that reside on nameservers of com domain, right?
(and then I'll have to wait for the changes to propagate)

And that wouldn't be something that is called 'domain transfer' - I'm
just not using ARegistrar's nameservers but I still pay ARegistrar for
the domain because they are giving me the access to NS RRs of com
nameservers, right?

So basically, registering a domain (example.com) == getting access (via
registrars panel) to NS RRs of nameservers of higher level domain (com).
Right?

So the process of registering a domain as such has nothing to do with
DNS hosting except fot the fact that many (most) registrars offer you
DNS hosting (and configures it properly) when you register a domain. Right?

And last question - just want to be super sure: the SOA RR for
example.com resides on nameserver for that domain (i.e.
ns1.ARegistrar.net) and not on nameserver of com domain, right?

Ok, big thanks for any answers

In article <fdr86k$br7$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>,
flawius <flawius@gmx.net> wrote:
> ...
>During the registration, new RRs (of type NS) were created on the
>namservers of the com domain and I got access (via my registrars panel)
>to change contents of those RRs. Is this right?
>
>Still I need a service called DNS hosting, right?
>
>Fortunately ARegistrar offers free DNS hosting to its clients, so during
>the registration process, ARegistrar filled NS RRs on nameservers of com
>domain with names of its nameservers - such as ns1.aregistrar.net
>(primary) and ns2.aregistrar.net (secondary). Still correct?
>
>So this newly created RRs say that the nameservers for example.com are
>ns1.aregistrar.net (primary) and ns1.aregistrar.net (secondary),

Presumably theres a typo and you didn't mean the same host as the
secondary.

> but this information is not authoritative. Right?

Assuming they set it up correctly, it *is* authoritative. There might
not be any RRs for hosts yet but it will answer authoritatively that
foo.example.com doesn't exist.

>The authoritative information about example.com resides on ARegistrar's
>nameservers (ns1.aregistrar.net, ns2.aregistrar.net) in the form of NS
>RRs (so the ns1.aregistrar.net says that it is a nameserver for
>example.com). Right?
>
>So it possible for me to change nameservers for my domain any time by
>changing the NS RRs that reside on nameservers of com domain, right?
>(and then I'll have to wait for the changes to propagate)

It would be safer to add the new nameservers first, wait, then remove
the old nameservers. That way you'll avoid being unreachable.

>And that wouldn't be something that is called 'domain transfer' - I'm
>just not using ARegistrar's nameservers but I still pay ARegistrar for
>the domain because they are giving me the access to NS RRs of com
>nameservers, right?

No. Registrar services are independent (except for root updates) of
DNS services. Although many (most?) registrars do offer DNS services
if you want to use your own or somebody elses nameservers it doesn't
mean you have to transfer the domain.

>So basically, registering a domain (example.com) == getting access (via
>registrars panel) to NS RRs of nameservers of higher level domain (com).
>Right?

Yes but it doesn't mean you have to enter nameservers run by your
registrar.

>So the process of registering a domain as such has nothing to do with
>DNS hosting except fot the fact that many (most) registrars offer you
>DNS hosting (and configures it properly) when you register a domain. Right?

Exactly.

>And last question - just want to be super sure: the SOA RR for
>example.com resides on nameserver for that domain (i.e.
>ns1.ARegistrar.net) and not on nameserver of com domain, right?

Correct.

If you haven't already, you should get and read "DNS and BIND" aka
"the cricket book".

--
-- Rod --
rodd(at)polylogics(dot)com

Rod Dorman wrote:
> In article <fdr86k$br7$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>,
> flawius <flawius@gmx.net> wrote:
>> So this newly created RRs say that the nameservers for example.com are
>> ns1.aregistrar.net (primary) and ns1.aregistrar.net (secondary),
>
> Presumably theres a typo and you didn't mean the same host as the
> secondary.
>

Yup

>> but this information is not authoritative. Right?
>
> Assuming they set it up correctly, it *is* authoritative. There might
> not be any RRs for hosts yet but it will answer authoritatively that
> foo.example.com doesn't exist.
>

I thought that NS RRs residing on the com domain nameservers (saying
that the namesrevers for example.com are ns1.aregistrar.net and
ns2.aregistrar.net) are not authoritative and that authoritative NS RRs
are those residing on the example.com domain namesvers (that is
ns1.aregistrar.net and ns2.aregistrar.net) because of:

1. excerpt from RFC 1034 - 4.2 Technical considerations

"Within a class, 'cuts' in the name space can be made between any two
adjacent nodes. After all cuts are made, each group of connected name
space is a separate zone. The zone is said to be authoritative for all
names in the connected region."

2. excerpt from RFC 1034 - 4.2.1. Technical considerations:

"The RRs that describe cuts around the bottom of the zone are NS RRs
that name the servers for the subzones. Since the cuts are between
nodes, these RRs are NOT part of the authoritative data of the zone, and
should be exactly the same as the corresponding RRs in the top node of
the subzone. Since name servers are always associated with zone
boundaries, NS RRs are only found at nodes which are the top node of
some zone. In the data that makes up a zone, NS RRs are found at the top
node of the zone (and are authoritative) and at cuts around the bottom
of the zone (where they are not authoritative), but never in between."

Maybe (probably? ) I messed up something

>
> If you haven't already, you should get and read "DNS and BIND" aka
> "the cricket book".
>

Thanks, I will read it

In article <fdrn6r$5d2$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>,
flawius <flawius@gmx.net> wrote:
>Rod Dorman wrote:
>> In article <fdr86k$br7$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>,
>> flawius <flawius@gmx.net> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> but this information is not authoritative. Right?
>>
>> Assuming they set it up correctly, it *is* authoritative. There might
>> not be any RRs for hosts yet but it will answer authoritatively that
>> foo.example.com doesn't exist.
>
>I thought that NS RRs residing on the com domain nameservers (saying
>that the namesrevers for example.com are ns1.aregistrar.net and
>ns2.aregistrar.net) are not authoritative and that authoritative NS RRs
>are those residing on the example.com domain namesvers (that is
>ns1.aregistrar.net and ns2.aregistrar.net) because of:

I think your confusion might be my use of just the word
'authoritative' instead of saying authoritative for example.com.

Just saying a nameserver is authoritative doesn't give a complete
picture. One should really include *what* its authoritative for.

For example, the . (root) nameservers are authoritative for all the
TLDs. The .com nameservers are authoritative for all the <domain>.com
domains. The example.com nameservers (ns1 and ns2.aregistrar.net in
your example) are authoritative for example.com.

--
-- Rod --
rodd(at)polylogics(dot)com

In article <fdtvqu$ipg$1@reader1.panix.com>, Rod Dorman <rodd@panix.com> wrote:
> ...
>Just saying a nameserver is authoritative doesn't give a complete
>picture. One should really include *what* its authoritative for.
>
>For example, the . (root) nameservers are authoritative for all the
>TLDs. The .com nameservers are authoritative for all the <domain>.com
>domains. The example.com nameservers (ns1 and ns2.aregistrar.net in
>your example) are authoritative for example.com.

Sigh... in rereading that its still not coming out right.

Obviously a nameserver can't be authoritative for something that it
has delegated but it is authoritative for that delegation.

--
-- Rod --
rodd(at)polylogics(dot)com

> Obviously a nameserver can't be authoritative for something that it
> has delegated but it is authoritative for that delegation.

Oh yes, finally everything's clear to me Thank You