On 12/04/2012 02:44 AM, John Hascall wrote:
We have found that RPZ works quite well for us.
We have 366825 names in our RPZ zone at present
and scaling thus far has been a non-issue.ot (
Likewise. We have 675k entries in an RPZ zone, and performance is fine.
It's genuinely surprising how
-Messaggio originale-
Da: bind-users-bounces+stefano.chiesa=wki...@lists.isc.org
[mailto:bind-users-bounces+stefano.chiesa=wki...@lists.isc.org] Per conto di
Chiesa Stefano
Inviato: giovedì 29 novembre 2012 11.44
A: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Oggetto: OT - Dns test Q/A - [[]]
Hello
Hi all and thanks for existing!!!
I have two DNS server 1 Master and 1 Slave both of them with 2 view:
- 1 external view, used for resolve existing domain;
- 1 internal view with recursion enabled.
When there is an update Master-Slave, the process to update 2 view is the
follow:
- The First IP
On 4 Dec 2012, at 11:23, manman wrote:
Is it possible to update the second view when the firstl view is updated
without having to assign 2 IPs like now ?
You could use a pair of TSIG secrets instead of a pair of IP addresses.
There has been discussion about this on the list
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:09 AM, Niall O'Reilly niall.orei...@ucd.ie wrote:
On 4 Dec 2012, at 11:23, manman wrote:
Is it possible to update the second view when the firstl view is updated
without having to assign 2 IPs like now ?
You could use a pair of TSIG secrets instead of a
On 12/4/2012 6:00 AM, John Hascall j...@iastate.edu wrote:
We have found that RPZ works quite well for us.
We have 366825 names in our RPZ zone at present
and scaling thus far has been a non-issue.
A question from the OP that has not yet been answered -
Make the zones masters on all servers.
A specific query can cause BIND nameservers using DNS64 to exit with a REQUIRE
assertion failure.
CVE: CVE-2012-5688
Document Version:2.0
Posting date:04 Dec 2012
Program Impacted:BIND
Versions affected: 9.8.0-9.8.4, 9.9.0-9.9.2
Severity:
Introduction
BIND 9.9.2-P1 is a security-fix release, superceding BIND 9.9.2
as the latest production release of BIND 9.9.
This document summarizes changes from BIND 9.9.1 to BIND 9.9.2-P1.
Please see the CHANGES file in the source code release for a
complete list of all changes.
Introduction
BIND 9.8.4-P1 is a security-fix release, superceding BIND 9.8.4
as the latest production release of BIND 9.8.
This document summarizes changes from BIND 9.8.3 to BIND 9.8.4-P1.
Please see the CHANGES file in the source code release for a
complete list of all changes.
On 29/11/2012 11:25, Alexander Gurvitz wrote:
Hi Alexander,
I'm trying to run a bind9 from an upstart job instead of an init.d script.
I'm a bit confused if I should expect fork or expect daemon. It seems
to work with expect fork, though somehow I don't feel convinced.
Actually, you don't
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 09:45:07AM +, Phil Mayers wrote:
On 12/04/2012 02:44 AM, John Hascall wrote:
We have found that RPZ works quite well for us.
We have 366825 names in our RPZ zone at present
and scaling thus far has been a non-issue.ot (
Likewise. We have 675k entries in an RPZ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
http://www.five-ten-sg.com/util/bind-9.9.2-0.2.P1.fc18.src.rpm
EL4:
rpmbuild --rebuild --define 'dist .el4' \
bind-9.9.2-0.2.P1.fc18.src.rpm
EL5:
rpmbuild --rebuild --define 'dist .el5' \
bind-9.9.2-0.2.P1.fc18.src.rpm
EL6:
Hi All,
Is there a way for RPZ zone file to act on domain AND subdomains
without using two separate entries?
At present I can only get them to match on one or the other unless I do
example.comblah
*.example.com blah
I'm sure I've missed the obvious, but thought I'd ask
13 matches
Mail list logo
