dy
>
> =B9 Having a VPS gives the technical basis, but I don't mind taking an
> AXFR from anywhere.
>
> =B2 I don't actually know any, but I assume there are plenty. I don't
> mind if people want to suggest some.
>
> --
> http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEAREDAAYFAk821lsACgkQIJm2TL8VSQvIDwCg2/UqeAcIopTv/60IJ/rAuZ9n
> 8NwAniByFCyzkElAG1Mypb5ZvNOt/fhl
> =3D+m4K
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users@???
> https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>
That's pretty much the price level I'd have suggested (I'd have gone for a
round =A31 and =A310.) I used Gradwell for everything before moving to Bitf=
olk
for various reasons and at the time (a few years ago) found their DNS easy
to manipulate and a reasonable price. They (again at the time
and probably still) will do both primary and secondary DNS.
--=20
Robert Gauld
http://www.robertgauld.co.uk
--0015174c153e902ad304b8bdeb2c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 11 February 2012 20:58, Andy Smith <span dir=
=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"
mailto:andy@bitfolk.com">andy@???</a>></=
span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8e=
x;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi Ian,<br>
<br>
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 08:19:25PM +0000, Ian wrote:<br>
> Andy said:<br>
><br>
>> I do not recommend having all your nameservers in <a href=3D"http:=
//85.119.80.0/21" target=3D"_blank">85.119.80.0/21</a>. If<br>
>> Jump Networks were to go off the air, none of your nameservers wou=
ld<br>
>> be reachable. Of course, if everything you host is at BitFolk then=
<br>
>> that may not matter much, but still.<br>
><br>
> Yeah, it has been that, having two VPSes,<br>
<br>
Do you mean two VPSes at BitFolk? If so, can you explain a bit more?<br>
Just trying to understand your needs here.<br>
<br>
> and the 50 domain limit which has put me off doing this.<br>
<br>
There's currently one customer who has just over 50 domains on the<br>
BitFolk secondary service, and I haven't yet contacted them to see<br>
what they want to do about it because:<br>
<br>
a) I haven't thought too much about what to charge for "above 50&q=
uot;,<br>
and;<br>
<br>
b) Before charging I would like to have a better web interface in<br>
=A0 place so that customers can add, remove and disable domains<br>
=A0 without having to submit support tickets.<br>
<br>
So I have let them languish at just above 50 and will continue to do<br>
so until I have more of an idea.<br>
<br>
I haven't got rid of the 50 limit because I do still think there<br>
needs to be some sort of limit. The next person down the list by<br>
domain count is somewhere around 20 so it hasn't been a pressing<br>
issue.<br>
<br>
I should probably have realised though that there might be more of<br>
you who were just put off by there seeming to be nowhere to go.<br>
<br>
How many domains do you have? What would you consider a fair price<br>
for DNS hosting for them? Are there missing features that you feel<br>
would need to be implemented before BitFolk could actually charge<br>
for the >50 case?<br>
<br>
I want to focus on doing DNS hosting for existing customers only,<br>
which means they have the ability to run their own master DNS<br>
server(s)=B9. I don't want to get into hosting DNS with a web<br>
interface to manipulate zone content. I want to provide the DNS<br>
servers and monitoring of them, and basically any other assistance<br>
you can think of that enables you to run your own stuff.<br>
<br>
I appreciate that for a lot of people with a large number of domains<br>
the question may still be, "why would I pay BitFolk when there are<br>
companies out there that will provide secondary DNS for free?"=B2<br>
<br>
That's fine -
