-1

I currently am dealing with a client whose e-mail is hosted on Google. We are just in the process of taking over their domain, but their current hosting company suggests a different set up than I do and I was wondering if you could tell me some technical pros and contras of one or the other set up. Say their nameserver is ns.excompany.org And our nameserver is ns.incompany.org. Our server's IP is [IP]

The set up they suggest is the following: DNS for domain points to ns.excompany.org They have an A-record pointing to [IP] for the website They have an MX-record pointing to Google for mail

The set up I suggest is DNS for domain points to ns.incompany.org We have an MX-record pointing to Google for mail

The things that came to my mind were 1. If we ever, for whatever reasons, have our server's IP address changed, they will have to change it as well. 2. The client has to keep the old hosting company and keep paying them to maintain that set up, hence pays three services when they'd only need to pay for two services.

Are there any actual technical aspects/differences you could name?

  • 3
    Are you taking over the website or the actual domain? At the end of the day, the owner of the domain should choose who will host the Name Servers for that domain. – Alex Jul 3 '14 at 20:04
  • We're taking over the website, but our client (who is the owner, but not the manager) isn't really into any of the technical aspects so I am just trying to find out what would be the better choice (if there is any) from a technical point of view. I am also just curious as I like to learn :) – Aurelin Jul 3 '14 at 20:18
  • 3
    Unless you or the soon to be ex hosting company are in the business of hosting and providing redundant, scalable, resilient name servers then neither of you should be doing it. Move the name servers back to the Registrar. Then create whatever A, MX, CNAME, etc. records you'd like. I have a real dislike with web/email hosters who also want to host the name servers for a domain, because most of them are so poor at it. – joeqwerty Jul 4 '14 at 0:45
  • joegwerty, that is actually what a friend told me yesterday evening, too. I don't manage their domain though so I can't do anything anyways. But honestly, I highly doubt I can convince my boss to change over all the domains to work this way. And we don't manage half of the domains because our clients want to do it themselves. Thanks! – Aurelin Jul 4 '14 at 15:37
0

If you're taking over hosting the website/domain, and your customer isn't doing further business with the old company, why would they continue to host DNS?

I can't really see any reason why you'd want to do this. I think the old hosting company just wants to keep them as a customer, and keep getting paid for it.

  • That is what I thought too. But then they also manage the domain, it seems, and if our client is happy with that, than what can we do? I told the client that I find their reasoning a bit off as we can really just set up the same but he's apparently happy with how it is... My company charges for domain management, too and since I don't know what the other company charges, I don't know if it is much more expensive though. – Aurelin Jul 4 '14 at 15:31
  • I suspect you're going to be getting some angry phone calls the first time the other provider has an outage. – devicenull Jul 4 '14 at 15:50
  • Yeah probably... – Aurelin Jul 4 '14 at 17:10

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.