On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 08:18:35 +1100, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org said:
In message 19306.52059.975062.462...@hadron.switch.ch, Alexander Gall
writes:
All of those are NSEC3-agnostic. They should not do any DNSSEC
processing for the ch zone, because they don't support algorithm #7.
Yes and
Our authoritative servers for the signed TLD ch (NSEC3, no opt-out)
are receiving queries whose qnames are the NSEC3 hashed owner names of
existing delegeations. I suspect that this is a BIND issue (see
below), hence my post to this list.
What I'm seeing is stuff like this:
03-Feb-2010
On Feb 4 2010, Alexander Gall wrote:
Our authoritative servers for the signed TLD ch (NSEC3, no opt-out)
are receiving queries whose qnames are the NSEC3 hashed owner names of
existing delegeations. I suspect that this is a BIND issue (see
below), hence my post to this list.
What I'm seeing
On 04 Feb 2010 15:39:55 +, Chris Thompson c...@cam.ac.uk said:
On Feb 4 2010, Alexander Gall wrote:
Of the 60 sources in my sample,
26 responded to version queries. All of them identified themselves as
some version of BIND
5 9.5.0-P2
3 9.4.2-P2.1
3 9.4.2-P2
3 9.4.2-P1
3 9.3.4-P1
In message 19306.52059.975062.462...@hadron.switch.ch, Alexander Gall writes:
All of those are NSEC3-agnostic. They should not do any DNSSEC
processing for the ch zone, because they don't support algorithm #7.
Yes and no. Just because you are using a algorithm that is unsupported
doesn't
In message 19306.62546.632032.348...@hadron.switch.ch, Alexander Gall writes:
On 04 Feb 2010 15:39:55 +, Chris Thompson c...@cam.ac.uk said:
On Feb 4 2010, Alexander Gall wrote:
Of the 60 sources in my sample,
26 responded to version queries. All of them identified themselves as
6 matches
Mail list logo
