Hi All,
I'm using BIND 9.3.3rc2, I got the log below. again and again
Feb 5 14:24:27 ns01 named[7791]: lame server resolving 'researchcap.com'
(in 'researchcap.com'?): 209.115.142.1#53
Feb 5 14:24:27 ns01 named[7791]: lame server resolving 'conztract.com' (in
'conztract.com'?):
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
In article mailman.365.1265321768.21153.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
Recent version of named-checkconf have a -p (print) option which
will emit named.conf, sans comments, in a consistent style which
will then be easy to post process.
Shame about the sans
bsfin...@anl.gov wrote:
On a mail machine I am running a cache-only DNS - BIND 9.6.1-P3.
When I dump the cache I see two lines:
; answer
brainpower-austria.at. 6622MX 5 mx1.bon.at.
I then enter
./rndc flushname brainpower-austria.at
But when I then look at
I find this important enough to forward on to bind-users.
Please not the importance of trust anchor management.
AlanC
---BeginMessage---
[Apologies for duplicates]
Dear Colleagues,
We have discovered that recent versions of the Fedora Linux distribution
are shipping with a package called
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 06:22:26AM -0800, Alan Clegg wrote:
I find this important enough to forward on to bind-users.
Please not the importance of trust anchor management.
We (= me and Paul Wouters) are working on dnssec-conf update. Sorry
for troubles.
Regards, Adam
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010
Nameservers malfunction and networks in front of them malfunction.
When this happens to the secondary,
then you suffer what you are reporting. If you have only one
nameserver, then such a malfunction can
leave you dead in the water.
I've run into the issue of updates to secondaries
In message 20100205143439.ga15...@evileye.atkac.englab.brq.redhat.com, Adam T
kac writes:
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 06:22:26AM -0800, Alan Clegg wrote:
I find this important enough to forward on to bind-users.
Please not the importance of trust anchor management.
We (= me and Paul
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010, Mark Andrews wrote:
We (= me and Paul Wouters) are working on dnssec-conf update. Sorry
for troubles.
The better thing would be a a script to fetch the current keys
nightly, perform a sanity check, then update or inform the administator
and let them update the keys after
Paul Wouters wrote:
With the current success of the DLV, and the root zone deployment half
a year away, it is not really required anymore. I think it is much better
to get rid of all trust anchors apart from the ISC DLV key.
Do remember, however, that the DLV keys also roll, so this does need
Hello I wanted to ask how could be possible in some way
to have 2 or more multi master name servers authoritative for one domain,
instead of the classical master slave model.
thank you
Rick
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
On 2/5/2010 3:16 PM, Keith Christian wrote:
Version - bind 9.5.1 on CentOS 5.x. Is there a way to log either the
IP of clients requesting lookups of a particular domain?
In other words, I'd like to know the IP of clients trying to resolve
app01.foocompany.net (for example.)
There is
On 2/5/2010 2:41 PM, fddi wrote:
Hello I wanted to ask how could be possible in some way
to have 2 or more multi master name servers authoritative for one domain,
instead of the classical master slave model.
Yes.
--
Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
a
Doug Barton wrote:
On 2/5/2010 2:41 PM, fddi wrote:
Hello I wanted to ask how could be possible in some way
to have 2 or more multi master name servers authoritative for one domain,
instead of the classical master slave model.
Yes.
so should I use somthing like rsync or cfengine
Cricket Liu documents some stuff around this in section 8.2 of O'Reilly
DNS and BIND - 5th edition. The info does not exist in 3rd edition. (I
happen to have access to both)
Not enough info to justify buying the book, but might help you if you're
not a UNIX guru, so visit the library or make
On Friday 05 February 2010 17:41, fddi wrote:
Hello I wanted to ask how could be possible in some way
to have 2 or more multi master name servers authoritative for one domain,
instead of the classical master slave model.
Simple thing to do. I have a test lab here that I did this in a few
16 matches
Mail list logo
