>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Right. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, can anyone
>> suggest a *reliable* test for verifying that a nameserver is
>> responding ( which is seperate from verifying that a nameserver
>> is authoritatively serving a given zone )
Mark> Send it a non-recursive query. A nameserver should
Mark> always answer even if it is just a header containing
Mark> refused, servfail or notimp.
Yes, but there is one notorious DNS implementation that doesn't do
that. It fails to return any answer -- not even a referral for . -- if
it's asked for a name that it isn't authoritative for.
- Re: Should a nameserver know about itself? Randy Bush
- Re: Should a nameserver know about itself? Bill Woodcock
- Re: Should a nameserver know about itself? bert hubert
- Re: Should a nameserver know about itself? Nathan Jones
- Re: Should a nameserver know about itself? Mark . Andrews
- Re: Should a nameserver know about itself? Robert Elz
- Re: Should a nameserver know about itself? Mans Nilsson
- Re: Should a nameserver know about itself? James Raftery
- Re: Should a nameserver know about itself? Bruce Campbell
- Re: Should a nameserver know about itself? Mark . Andrews
- Re: Should a nameserver know about it... Jim Reid
- Re: Should a nameserver know abou... Mats Dufberg
- Re: Should a nameserver know abou... Peter Koch
- Re: Should a nameserver know abou... Sam Trenholme
- Re: Should a nameserver know about itself? bert hubert
- Re: Should a nameserver know about itself? Robert Elz
- Re: Should a nameserver know about it... Bruce Campbell
- Re: Should a nameserver know abou... Sam Trenholme
- Re: Should a nameserver know abou... Mans Nilsson
- Re: Should a nameserver know abou... Jim Reid
- Re: Should a nameserver know abou... Mats Dufberg
