Ive heard one should be using a different DNS provider (other than keeping hosting provider/ registrar seperate), too. The reasons Ive heard were that
a)it's safer
b)it's faster
Ive asked the same thing on another forum, but everybody agreed that it was neither safer nor faster. Somebody actually said that using a different DNS provider than your registrar doubles the chance of having something really bad happen to your site.
I dont want to ask the same questions on here over and over again, but i searched and I couldnt find what I was looking for. Could somebody please point me to a thread where an explanation for why seperate DNS is safer? Id really appreciate it (and if theres no thread about this - which I highly doubt, Id appreciate a quick answer, too).
Can I switch to a different DNS provider later on, too? or do I have to do this instantly? Im trying to start my first site and am trying not to overcomplicate things and am considering postponing the seperate DNS until Ive finally build the site and let it go live (if something major should happen to the registrar during that time, I could live with it obviously)...unless of course this would be even more complicated
using non-webhost-nameservers allows a smoother transition when moving your website from one webhost to another. but, if your domain registrar offers dns management (where you can point it to an IP address), that's plenty good enough. after all, your domain registrar will always be in the loop anyway. I use registrar dns for several of my domains, and it works fine (including subdomains).
I also use 3rd party dns for some domains, those at registrars where the dns control panel isn't to my liking, or where free dns management is not offered.
one rare time when 3rd party dns would be useful is when you are moving the domain from one registrar to another, and you don't want to use your webhost's nameservers.
It also allows you much more flexibility than many registrar solutions.
e.g. Set multiple IP address subdomains, Mail Servers, WebForwards, MailFowards, Parking, Name Servers, Advanced Records eg. SPF, Aliases, SOA, Load Balancing, Failover Dynamic DNS, Backup Mail, Vanity Nameservers etc.
Once its set up changing registrars/hosting providers means no downtime or running 2 copies of the website during any DNS transition period.
Moving registrars or hosting providers is no longer tied to the management of the website. Changing servers for example is as simple as entering a new IP address and is instant.
It would be doubtful if it could be less safe because you are choosing 3 specialists in 3 very different and distinct areas - Domain Name Registration, DNS & Hosting to run your network.
It's safer than using your hosting provider, because the hosting provider can't blackmail you into staying with them, hold your DNS hostage because of some billing or TOS dispute, etc. Note that you could still change the DNS server pointers at the registrar if this occurred, however. So, it's more of an inconvenience. So, with respect to hosts, it's more important to avoid using them as a registrar, as doing so really gives them power over you.
Hosts often really only provide one DNS server, though technically you are required to have two - and to have them in different physical locations. In some cases, they run your DNS server on the same physical machine as your web server. This is less of an issue, though, for single-website domains, and more important for, say, a large corporation with multiple web (or other) servers.
3rd party safer than using your registrar, in the rare situation where your registrar may fail or go out of business. Rare - but go back and read the hand-wringing on this forum a few months ago when this actually happened with a large registrar. Wanted to add an additional host (say, images.example.com)? Planned on moving to a different host, because you got a better deal and your contract with your host was up? DNS with your registrar, and too bad - you'd have to wait until it all gets sorted-out. You are locked-in to your current configuration until you get control of your DNS back. And you may just not have any DNS service at all - for weeks or months, if the failed registrar shuts off it's servers.
The pointers to your DNS server live (relatively) safely with the registry (.e.g. .com registry), not the registrar. During any disruption of your registrar, you might not be able to change the pointers, but at least you'd be able to still make changes to DNS during the period of confusion.
It can be faster, because some third-party DNS providers use IP-Anycast routing, and have servers on several continents. IP-Anycast routes DNS requests to the nearest server. Also, some third-party DNS providers pay more attention to detail and response time. The registrars are giving away a free service. They don't have much of an incentive to provide more than okay service. (But they do have an incentive to provide trouble-free service - they don't want the support calls!)
Third-party DNS certainly can provide much greater convenience, especially if you are managing multiple domains. Some of them are specifically geared toward this, and provide features for bulk-updating and/or templates that can be applied to multiple domains.
For a newbie, though - the DNS provided by your registrar is probably just fine.
1)
3rd party safer than using your registrar, in the rare situation where your registrar may fail or go out of business. Rare - but go back and read the hand-wringing on this forum a few months ago
Maybe this has to do with the fact that Im still very new to the web, but can't your DNS provider fail, too? Or would it not matter too much if either your registrar OR your DNS provider fail as you'd still have one of the two? Or is it simply unlikely(impossible?) that a DNS provider fails?
2)
During the next 12 months or so complete safety isnt overly important to me (though Im really paranoid and into safety and lowering risks!:-)). I want to put up 3 or so (small) test sites and basically play around with them, do some link building, get a feeling for what works and what doesn't. Hopefully I'll see that one of them has decent potential and Ill focus on that website then. Would it be easy to
a)start using seperate DNS once that happens?
b) This hasn't been mentioned, I think, but I guess if youre out for as much safety as possible using various (big) registrars might be a good bet. Your chances of having something happen to *one* of your sites would obviously be bigger, but your chances of losing more than one of your sites would become a lot slimmer. (not really that important for me at the moment, but I think Id want to do that to reduce risk in the long-run once I do have multiple sites that are important to me).
if I'd like to keep all of those sites and wanted to make it safer, could I still register another account at another (major) registrar and move a few of the domains (1 or 2 :-)) to that other registrar (or in the long-run case to multiple big registrars)?
can't your DNS provider fail, too? Or would it not matter too much if either your registrar OR your DNS provider fail as you'd still have one of the two?
It would not matter that much because you could simply get another DNS provider. You'd still be able to change the DNS server pointers at your registrar to the new provider. Certainly a hassle and some downtime, but not catastrophic.
Now, if your registrar fails, that's a bigger deal. Because at that point (potentially) your sites are all (at best) frozen in amber until the mess is ironed-out.
At worst, your sites will be down - if you hosted your DNS with your register, and they shut-down their DNS servers. If their subscriber services are shut-down, then you wouldn't be able to change the DNS pointers to use a different DNS provider.
Or is it simply unlikely(impossible?) that a DNS provider fails?
It's been thought by many to be unlikely to impossible.
But it happened within the past few months. A major registrar (RegisterFly) failed, and it took some considerable time before an agreement was reached to have their accounts taken over by GoDaddy.
Oh, ICANN stepped in. There were court judgments and court orders - largely ignored. Ultimately, it was a private deal brokered between RegisterFly and Godaddy that saved everyone's domains. It was a precarious situation, because there is no system for escrowing private registrant data - those with Domain Privacy service were especially vulnerable, and depended on this private deal to save their domains.
Can't happen? Did happen.
If you opt to register your domain with your hosting company they will (or should) set up the DNS records for you. But there are pitfalls. You can't see how they have set them up, and they may be set up in a manner that makes life easy for them, but slows things down for you. (It happened to me! Only one of their name servers had the correct A records, the second just had a CNAME pointing at the other server.)
In my opinion the best course is to register your domain names with a separate provider, one that offers DNS services, and has several name servers spread across the US and Europe. With DNS services you are in charge of the records. You may not need this level of service now, but it makes things easier in the long run (such as changing host). Also as you make the changes yourself, no one can charge you for it.
The cost of a good provider isn't actually that much more expensive. I'm in the UK, and I register domains in the US with Nettica and it costs me no more than if I registered them with a cheapo company in the UK.
The down side is that you have to figure out how to configure the DNS records yourself, although its actually not very difficult. I got help from this forum when I had to do it.
@jtara:
Or is it simply unlikely(impossible?) that a DNS provider fails?
It's been thought by many to be unlikely to impossible.
But it happened within the past few months. A major registrar (RegisterFly) failed, and it took some considerable time before an agreement was reached to have their accounts taken over by GoDaddy
Not trying to be nit-picky, but I meant if its unlikely to impossible for a DNS provider to fail not a registrar (hopefully im not confusing something now).
But apparently if I use third party DNS that means if my registrar fails I still have the same DNS and thus no big problem (at least no catastrophy). Whereas if my DNS provider fails I'd still have the domain name?
Did I understand this correctly? If I either have the domain name or the DNS under my control and if one of them fails, Ill still be able to keep the domain?
If I either have the domain name or the DNS under my control and if one of them fails, Ill still be able to keep the domain?
Yes.
Worst-case registrar failure: registrar shuts off all their equipment. You have no ability to make changes to the registration. You can't transfer the domain. You can't change your pointers to your DNS server. If your DNS is hosted at the registrar, you can't change your DNS details. In fact, you would have no DNS anyway.
Your domain is still registered, though - since the registration is at the registry, not the registrar. If your DNS is somewhere other than the registrar, it will still function. You can't change DNS servers during the crisis, but at least your site will still function as long as you don't need to change DNS servers for any reason. You can still make changes to DNS (say, to add a server, to move a server to a different host, etc.)
One last question: Another piece of advice Ive been given is to use a registrar that's close to where I live. So in case something happens I can show up there in person (no idea if that actually would help but sounded like a good idea).
But if I use third party DNS I wont have to worry about all that in the first place, because even in case something like that did happen the registrar couldn't hurt me even if he's on the other side of the globe, right? Neither could the DNS provider wherever he is. (unless they did it both at the same time, which I wont worry about)
?
