3 ms·
Yeah, Route53 isn't as feature rich though. Also I have the same problem, keeps giving me errors about bad nameservers. I guess I'll keep trying.
by kelton5020 13y ago
Yeah, Route53 isn't as feature rich though. Also I have the same problem, keeps giving me errors about bad nameservers. I guess I'll keep trying.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- colmmacc 13y agoHi, I work on Route 53, can you clarify; are you seeing a problem from your registrar when you try to move to Route 53? We're also always keen to hear about features customers would like.
- rdl 13y agoSecondary DNS from a normal bind nameserver.
- agwa 13y agoI second this. I'll add that Route 53 would need to respond to notifies for this to be useful.
- colmmacc 13y agoIt's definitely on our list, but in the meantime there is https://code.google.com/p/route53d/ https://code.google.com/p/route53d/ which will let you translate an AXFR/IXFR from a bind server directly into Route 53 authenticated calls.