Re: Version statement...
Jeremy, it is exactly as you asked. Apparently the real version is displayed using certain commands, and the user-defined version is displayed in other places. I have since learned that you get different version output from dig, named -v, and a dns query and the version statement only affects specific outputs. So it depends on how it's queried. That doesn't seem clear in the documentation unless I missed it...thus my confusion. Jeff On Aug 18, 2012, at 6:10 PM, Jeremy C. Reed jr...@isc.org wrote: How are you testing it? Where do you see the wrong version? ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Mangled secondary records...
I made a change in all of the master records and wanted to force the slave to update. I deleted all the host files on the secondary and restarted named. It pulls all the domains in and creates new host files, but when you view the host files for each domain, they appear to be garbled. Running the same BIND version on both primary and secondary. Help! Secondary is effectively down as a result... Jeff ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: Mangled secondary records...
Hmmmokay. It makes me wonder why my primary isn't doing this as well though. They have been running the same version. Jeff On Aug 18, 2012, at 2:53 AM, Michael Hoskins (michoski) micho...@cisco.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Jeff Justice listacco...@starionline.com Date: Saturday, August 18, 2012 12:24 AM To: bind-users@lists.isc.org bind-users@lists.isc.org Subject: Mangled secondary records... I made a change in all of the master records and wanted to force the slave to update. I deleted all the host files on the secondary and restarted named. It pulls all the domains in and creates new host files, but when you view the host files for each domain, they appear to be garbled. Running the same BIND version on both primary and secondary. Help! Secondary is effectively down as a result... Are you sure you're not just seeing compiled zones that are now default in 9.9? http://ftp.isc.org/isc/bind9/cur/9.9/doc/arm/Bv9ARM.ch06.html#zonefile_form at http://www.isc.org/software/bind/new-features/9.9 http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Comp/comp.protocols.dns.bind/2012-0 6/msg00094.html If you really want the old behavior, try your exercise again after adding masterfile-format text; to your options clause. This is a FAQ. :-) ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: Mangled secondary records...
Nevermind. I get it now. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Jeff On Aug 18, 2012, at 3:21 AM, Jeff Justice listacco...@starionline.com wrote: Hmmmokay. It makes me wonder why my primary isn't doing this as well though. They have been running the same version. Jeff On Aug 18, 2012, at 2:53 AM, Michael Hoskins (michoski) micho...@cisco.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Jeff Justice listacco...@starionline.com Date: Saturday, August 18, 2012 12:24 AM To: bind-users@lists.isc.org bind-users@lists.isc.org Subject: Mangled secondary records... I made a change in all of the master records and wanted to force the slave to update. I deleted all the host files on the secondary and restarted named. It pulls all the domains in and creates new host files, but when you view the host files for each domain, they appear to be garbled. Running the same BIND version on both primary and secondary. Help! Secondary is effectively down as a result... Are you sure you're not just seeing compiled zones that are now default in 9.9? http://ftp.isc.org/isc/bind9/cur/9.9/doc/arm/Bv9ARM.ch06.html#zonefile_form at http://www.isc.org/software/bind/new-features/9.9 http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Comp/comp.protocols.dns.bind/2012-0 6/msg00094.html If you really want the old behavior, try your exercise again after adding masterfile-format text; to your options clause. This is a FAQ. :-) ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: Version statement...
Okay, here's what I know: named-checkconf says there are no errors. There is only one named process running. When I apply my edited named.conf, the log shows named stopping and restarting with no errors. How can I check to see the path where my named process thinks named.conf is located? Jeff On Aug 17, 2012, at 6:38 AM, Carsten Strotmann c...@strotmann.de wrote: Jeff Justice listacco...@starionline.com writes: Hi Jeff, I am trying to mask our DNS servers version output to a custom string, but it doesn't seem to be working for me. In a nutshell, I have added this to my options block of my named.conf: version [DNS Server]; But when I do a query, it still shows the actual version number i.e. BIND 9.9.1-P2, both from the command line and from an outside query tool. What am I missing? make sure BIND can load the changed configuration file named.conf, test with named-checkconf and check the BIND nameserver logfiles for errors. The issue here is probably that the running nameserver does not read the configuration file. Also check if there is more than one named process running (should be only one in most installations). -- Carsten ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: Version statement...
Okay, I have confirmed the correct named.conf file by simply removing it then restarting bind. It throws an error until replaced. So any other ideas why the version directive won't work? Can anyone confirm with 9.9.1-P2? Jeff On Aug 17, 2012, at 9:02 PM, Michael Hoskins (michoski) micho...@cisco.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Jeff Justice listacco...@starionline.com Date: Friday, August 17, 2012 6:10 PM To: bind-users@lists.isc.org bind-users@lists.isc.org Subject: Re: Version statement... Okay, here's what I know: named-checkconf says there are no errors. There is only one named process running. When I apply my edited named.conf, the log shows named stopping and restarting with no errors. How can I check to see the path where my named process thinks named.conf is located? I think configuration and OS tools are your best bet... You could check ps if you haven't already (sometimes it's there), you could check /etc/sysconfig/named or /etc/rc.conf*, or grep init scripts. You could use lsof and look for clues. ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Version statement...
I am trying to mask our DNS servers version output to a custom string, but it doesn't seem to be working for me. In a nutshell, I have added this to my options block of my named.conf: version [DNS Server]; But when I do a query, it still shows the actual version number i.e. BIND 9.9.1-P2, both from the command line and from an outside query tool. What am I missing? Jeff ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: Version statement...
Doesn't seem to work with or without the brackets. Does it matter what order
it appears in the options list? Or a limit on number of characters?
Jeff
On Aug 17, 2012, at 12:34 AM, David Miller dmil...@tiggee.com wrote:
On 8/17/2012 1:13 AM, Jeff Justice wrote:
I am trying to mask our DNS servers version output to a custom string, but
it doesn't seem to be working for me. In a nutshell, I have added this to
my options block of my named.conf:
version [DNS Server];
options {
version string;
works for me in 9.8. Maybe BIND doesn't like the square brackets?
But when I do a query, it still shows the actual version number i.e. BIND
9.9.1-P2, both from the command line and from an outside query tool.
What am I missing?
Jeff
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to
unsubscribe from this list
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Dynamic zone...
I apologize in advance for my limited understanding of BIND. I know just enough to have our primary and secondary running without any problems, but I am needing to do something new. I searched this list for anything about dynamically updating a zone, but to be honest, it all seems over my head and I was unclear whether I was reading something that addressed my need. Here's what I'm trying to do: I have a computer on a remote network that gets its IP dynamically from the ISP. I need to always know where that computer is. I had thought that I could simply scrape it's public IP, have it sent to my primary NS computer (which of course is on a static IP), then use that information to keep a zone updated on our DNS. So, for example, if my main domain for our company were: abc.com then it would be nice to have: remote.abc.com that I could use to always reach that machine no matter what its IP is. I'm sure this can be done, but can anyone explain in simple terms what I need to do? Jeff ___ bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Forcing a secondary update...
Without getting into how I managed to accomplish this, I have wound up with a secondary DNS that has incorrect information in it but the serial numbers are the same as on the master. So, my question is: how can I get the secondary to sync up? I presume all I would need to do is make a single change to the zones on the master, thus changing the serial number, and causing the secondary to update. The info in the master is correct, so I really don't need to change anything, but I could add something then delete it. Is there an automated way I can do this, or batch method? There are just enough zones as to make this a real hassle if I were to do it one by one. Jeff J. ___ bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: Secondary and TLD not updating
Ack! allow-transfer should never be any What, never? Why not? Security issue! You really want everyone to download your zone(s)? That is a decision for each operator to make. The ability to transfer a zone is not by itself a security issue. I guess the question is, what information can be gained from a transfer that can't be gained through a query or dig? Jeff J. ___ bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
