Jump to content

Domain checker issue


Recommended Posts

This morning i ran a search on a domain name that i own, just to see what bother extensions were available i was surprised to see the name i searched: strongnet.net came back as available as did the .com

 

So i searched again and they showed as taken, the again and they showed as available

 

I searched another name which i knew were taken, and the .com and .net showed as available. Another searched showed them as taken

 

This problem seems to only affect .com and .net that i can see, and its only happened since my upgrade to 5.2.5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, the more I look at this - the more oddities I see.


root@vm1 [~]# whois google.com -h whois.crsnic.net
[Querying whois.crsnic.net]
[whois.crsnic.net]

Whois Server Version 2.0

Domain names can now be registered with many different competing registrars. 
Go to http://registrar.verisign-grs.com/whois/ for detailed information.

GOOGLE.COM
GOOGLE.COM

To single out one record, look it up with "xxx", where xxx is one of the
of the records displayed above. If the records are the same, look them up
with "=xxx" to receive a full display for each record.

 


# whois google.com
[Querying whois.verisign-grs.com]
[whois.verisign-grs.com]

Whois Server Version 2.0

Domain names can now be registered with many different competing registrars. 
Go to http://registrar.verisign-grs.com/whois/ for detailed information.

No match for domain "GOOGLE.COM".

 

These two reference the inability for these whoisservers to find ownership of that domain, or it's existence. However re-running the command gives what we all expect - that it's currently registered. A quick loop shows it returning as registered & as not registered in short spans from each other:

 

 


# while true ; do date ; whois google.com|egrep 'No match for domain|Expires on' ; sleep 1 ; done
Sat Jun  1 10:48:37 EDT 2013
No match for domain "GOOGLE.COM".
Sat Jun  1 10:48:38 EDT 2013
No match for domain "GOOGLE.COM".
Sat Jun  1 10:48:39 EDT 2013
No match for domain "GOOGLE.COM".
Sat Jun  1 10:48:40 EDT 2013
   Expires on..............: 2020-09-13.
Sat Jun  1 10:48:42 EDT 2013
   Expires on..............: 2020-09-13.
Sat Jun  1 10:48:43 EDT 2013
Sat Jun  1 10:48:45 EDT 2013
Sat Jun  1 10:48:46 EDT 2013
No match for domain "GOOGLE.COM".
Sat Jun  1 10:48:47 EDT 2013
No match for domain "GOOGLE.COM".
Sat Jun  1 10:48:48 EDT 2013

 

 

 

There seems to be inconsistencies with whois providers returning consistent data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am facing this same issue.

 

Which whois server is reliable to use?(any recommendation?)

 

Ive a horrible feeling its probably a communication error between the different registries, so none will be reliable.. But these errors normally get fixed quite quickly as it will have and affect on every company dealing with domains not just whmcs users..

 

Atleast i hope thats the case

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive a horrible feeling its probably a communication error between the different registries, so none will be reliable.. But these errors normally get fixed quite quickly as it will have and affect on every company dealing with domains not just whmcs users..

 

Atleast i hope thats the case

 

It seems to be isolated to .com, .net, and .org - that I've found thus far. It's definitely not an issue with the software as it occurs simply using the `whois` command. That being said, it is something I feel a solution should be found for if this ever occurs again. If I find anything else out, I'll update this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Over the last 24 hours my WHMCS availability checker is occasionally returning "No Match" for .COM domains that are in fact registered. This is allowing clients to register domains that are unavailable.

 

Is anyone else experiencing this problem?

 

If I do a whois check for "gbp.com" around one third of the time it is coming up as available.

 

The only thing I have done recently is applied the 5.1.6 and 5.1.7 patches.

 

Any ideas would be most gratefully received!

 

Thank you in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Additional, here is a copy of the outpout from the server console, completely bypassing WHMCS:

 

[root@server]# whois gbp.com

[Querying whois.verisign-grs.com]

[whois.verisign-grs.com]

 

Whois Server Version 2.0

 

Domain names can now be registered with many different competing registrars.

Go to http://registrar.verisign-grs.com/whois/ for detailed information.

 

No match for domain "GBP.COM".

 

>>> Last update of whois database: 2013-06-02T11:22:34Z <<<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Additional, here is a copy of the outpout from the server console, completely bypassing WHMCS:

 

[root@server]# whois gbp.com

[Querying whois.verisign-grs.com]

[whois.verisign-grs.com]

 

Whois Server Version 2.0

 

Domain names can now be registered with many different competing registrars.

Go to http://registrar.verisign-grs.com/whois/ for detailed information.

 

No match for domain "GBP.COM".

 

>>> Last update of whois database: 2013-06-02T11:22:34Z <<<

 

http://whois.domaintools.com/gbp.com '

[h=2]This domain name is not registered'[/h]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If only GBP.COM really was available to register! I've had clients purchase this domain twice from me in the last 24 hours LOL!

 

Using WHOIS just is not reliable enough, I asked a little while back if we could bypass the WHOIS function so we could use the OpenSRS / Nominet availability checkers... Does anyone have a workaround while this problem is ongoing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have some problem too, sometime .com and .net registered domain always avaliable when check. I check in other provider use WHMCS have some problem, what whois server stable for .com and .net domain ...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it's a very unfortunate problem. One WHMCS users who also deals with a large number of domain registations stated they've disabled .com,.net, etc until the problem is resolved.

 

While that's also unfortunate as it's potentially a lost sale, it's also not a potential upset customer or charge back.

 

Something to consider during this period. If any finds a suitable whois or more information - please share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Guidelines and understand your posts will initially be pre-moderated