Re: BIND 9.9.0 is now available

2012-03-02 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 29.02.12 17:53, Michael McNally wrote: NXDOMAIN redirection is now possible. This enables a resolver to respond to a client with locally-configured information when a query would otherwise have gotten an answer of no such domain. This allows a recursive nameserver to provide

RE: RFC 6303 and bind 9.9.0

2012-03-02 Thread Spain, Dr. Jeffry A.
If the root hints are updated on ftp://rs.internic.net/domain/, would it require a new build of bind to incorporate them, or is bind able to update its built-in root hints by some other means? No, it requires a rebuild after changing lib/dns/rootns.c. But using a mildly out-of-date hints

RE: RFC 6303 and bind 9.9.0

2012-03-02 Thread Tony Finch
Spain, Dr. Jeffry A. spa...@countryday.net wrote: Would you please elaborate on how you are managing your bogon-related empty zones. I have bogon declarations and empty zones for all the ranges listed in RFC 5735 except 224.0.0.0/4 which only has a bogon declaration. (The multicast addresses

RE: RFC 6303 and bind 9.9.0

2012-03-02 Thread Spain, Dr. Jeffry A.
No, it requires a rebuild after changing lib/dns/rootns.c. But using a mildly out-of-date hints file is usually harmless - it is only a *hint*. Right. One of the first things BIND does after starting up is query one of the root servers to get the current set of root servers. Thanks. This

Re: BIND 9.9.0 is now available

2012-03-02 Thread Phil Mayers
On 02/03/12 10:13, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 29.02.12 17:53, Michael McNally wrote: NXDOMAIN redirection is now possible. This enables a resolver to respond to a client with locally-configured information when a query would otherwise have gotten an answer of no such domain. This allows a

Re: BIND 9.9.0 is now available

2012-03-02 Thread Bill Owens
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 11:13:06AM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 29.02.12 17:53, Michael McNally wrote: NXDOMAIN redirection is now possible. This enables a resolver to respond to a client with locally-configured information when a query would otherwise have gotten an answer of

Re: RFC 6303 and bind 9.9.0

2012-03-02 Thread Barry Margolin
In article mailman.102.1330686511.63724.bind-us...@lists.isc.org, Spain, Dr. Jeffry A. spa...@countryday.net wrote: No, it requires a rebuild after changing lib/dns/rootns.c. But using a mildly out-of-date hints file is usually harmless - it is only a *hint*. Right. One of the first

Re: BIND 9.9.0 is now available

2012-03-02 Thread Evan Hunt
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 11:13:06AM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: NXDOMAIN redirection is now possible. This enables a resolver to respond to a client with locally-configured information when a query would otherwise have gotten an answer of no such domain. This allows a recursive

RE: RFC 6303 and bind 9.9.0

2012-03-02 Thread Spain, Dr. Jeffry A.
Didn't the answer to the NS query include the addresses in the Additional Section? It does when I perform the query manually. It gets cut off with the default packet size, but if EDNS0 is used it will include them all. The addresses are included in the additional section. Missed that

BIND 9.9.0 Inline-Signing Out of Control

2012-03-02 Thread David Kreindler
When BIND 9.9.0 was released, we started converting our DNSSEC-signed zones to inline signing. Everything went smoothly with all but one of our zones (pesky.zone, below). With that zone, after named signed it and completed an AXFR-style IXFR to each of four slaves, it proceeded to start

Re: BIND 9.9.0 Inline-Signing Out of Control

2012-03-02 Thread Mark Andrews
Just let it complete signing the zone. This is done incrementally. sig-signing-nodes integer; sig-signing-signatures integer; These control the number nodes processed and signatures generated per increment. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117,

Re: A few conceptual question about dnssec.

2012-03-02 Thread dE .
On 02/18/12 00:36, Gaurav kansal wrote: Firstly, where do we get the public key for the DS records? Can you clarify your question??? Second, why do I get multiple DS records as response? -- You will always get a 2 DS Records in response. One for SHA-1 and second for SHA-256. I was

Re: A few conceptual question about dnssec.

2012-03-02 Thread dE .
On 03/03/12 12:47, dE . wrote: On 02/18/12 00:36, Gaurav kansal wrote: Firstly, where do we get the public key for the DS records? Can you clarify your question??? Second, why do I get multiple DS records as response? -- You will always get a 2 DS Records in response. One for SHA-1 and