In my case, dig is asking for the nameservers of the root-zone and is
getting the answer:
. IN NS root1
. IN NS root2
etc
Next dig is asking for the A-record of root1. And here is the
differrence:
If I do dig root1 dig is asking exactly this, it is asking for the
dig +trace calls getaddrinfo() and that needs to be able to resolve
the hostname (without dots at the end). getaddrinfo() is called
so that we don't have to have a full blown iterative resolver in
dig.
I see. So no way to solve this one in dig itself.
The Internet moved from being a
Really? Maybe it is not. The recursor receives a response with additional
section from a zone and if it finds that the nameservers in the authority
section of the response belong to the zone, it will use the glue records in the
additonal section, elsewise, it will laungh a new query about
hi everyone.
i've had a question for a long time.
when i set my dns server (via bind) as forward only server, i set two
destination dns addresses.
now, when the first destination dns server is down, will my server still
send requests to it?
when does my server send request to the second one?
thank
On 02.09.11 14:52, JudahXIII wrote:
when i set my dns server (via bind) as forward only server, i set two
destination dns addresses.
do you run bind server as forward only? why not use those forwarders
directly?
now, when the first destination dns server is down, will my server still
send
* 风河:
i just want to make sure about it, and will the client resolver use the
additional records directly?
It is somewhat difficult to make correct use of the additional section.
For example, Exim tried to do it, but they had to remove the code
because it caused spurious mail delivery
On Sep 2, 2011 9:48 AM, TMK eng...@gmail.com wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Leonard Mills l...@yahoo.com
Date: Aug 31, 2011 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: slow non-cached quries
To: TMK eng...@gmail.com
;; Received 738 bytes from 192.112.36.4#53(G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET) in 3133 ms
Hi Tom,
At 23:42 01-09-2011, Tom Schmitt wrote:
But seriously: I don't see in the RFC that it is forbidden to have a
hostname directly in the root-zone (without a internal dot).
From RFC 921:
The names are being changed from simple names, or globally unique
strings, to structured names,
From: Leonard Mills l...@yahoo.com
Date: Aug 31, 2011 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: slow non-cached quries
To: TMK eng...@gmail.com
;; Received 738 bytes from 192.112.36.4#53(G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET) in 3133 ms
That pretty much is your delay. Look to your intermediate network
segments, especially any smart
On 31/08/11 16:36, Tom Schmitt wrote:
What strikes me as odd is that the first query does return 4 (internal)
root servers, but no glue records ?
I have no idea why this is this way.
Because +trace only displays the answer section of the responses by
default.
Try dig +trace +additional.
On 09/01/2011 11:53 PM, Vbvbrj wrote:
On 01.09.2011 19:01, CT wrote:
so did you end up setting up a slave zone (for the internal AD DNS)
on your public DNS server ?
No, for now I just left the AD DNS (Microsoft DNS) instead of BIND. I
didn't have time to move all DNS servers to BIND and make
11 matches
Mail list logo
