On 16.01.13 14:57, Baird, Josh wrote:
Is it acceptable to have a wildcard CNAME? Example:
* IN CNAMEsomewhere.com.
Or, would it be advised to only use wildcard 'A' records?
while it is technically valid, I don't think it's acceptable to use solutions
Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk wrote:
On 16.01.13 14:57, Baird, Josh wrote:
Is it acceptable to have a wildcard CNAME? Example:
* IN CNAMEsomewhere.com.
Or, would it be advised to only use wildcard 'A' records?
while it is technically
In article mailman.1072.1358349671.11945.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Oliver Peter li...@peter.de.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 02:57:48PM +, Baird, Josh wrote:
Is it acceptable to have a wildcard CNAME? Example:
* IN CNAMEsomewhere.com.
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:33:03AM -0500, Barry Margolin wrote:
In article mailman.1072.1358349671.11945.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Oliver Peter li...@peter.de.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 02:57:48PM +, Baird, Josh wrote:
Is it acceptable to have a wildcard CNAME? Example:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk wrote:
On 16.01.13 14:57, Baird, Josh wrote:
Is it acceptable to have a wildcard CNAME? Example:
* IN CNAMEsomewhere.com.
Or, would it be advised to only use wildcard 'A' records?
while it is technically valid,
Is there anything technically wrong with having a SOA MNAME field that
isn't listed as a NS record?
The server listed as MNAME will host the zone and is authoritative for
the zone, but out of latency concerns it isn't ideal to have other
resolvers querying this server.
Various online DNS
On Jan 16, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
Is there anything technically wrong with having a SOA MNAME field that isn't
listed as a NS record?
Sure. The SOA MNAME is expected to be the primary master nameserver for the
zone; it's where things like dhcpd and such send dynamic updates
There is no issue with a configuration like this. It is the very definition
of a stealth master and is a very common configuration. Any DDNS updates
will continue to reach the stealth master via the mname and no resolvers
will find the master via NS records so it won't be queried.
On Jan 16, 2013
In article mailman.1077.1358370123.11945.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Chuck Swiger cswi...@mac.com wrote:
On Jan 16, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
Is there anything technically wrong with having a SOA MNAME field that
isn't listed as a NS record?
Sure. The SOA MNAME is expected to
On Jan 16, 2013, at 1:42 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
In article mailman.1077.1358370123.11945.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Chuck Swiger cswi...@mac.com wrote:
On Jan 16, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
Is there anything technically wrong with having a SOA MNAME field that
isn't listed as
Brian Paul Kroth bpkr...@gmail.com 2013-01-15 23:19:
Hello All,
First, I'm not currently on the list, so please CC if me if you could.
Let's try this again now that I'm on the list.
Next, I've been working on some scripts to get KSK rotation
semi-automated or at least alerting in our
From: Dave Warren li...@hireahit.com
Various online DNS diagnostic tools throw warnings,
Speaking of so called DNS diagnostic tools, one claims that my domains
have DNS servers with private network addresses. My only guess is
that they don't know the difference between IPv6 addresses and
RFC
-Original Message-
From: Vernon Schryver v...@rhyolite.com
Date: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 5:05 PM
To: bind-users@lists.isc.org bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: MNAME not a listed NS record
From: Dave Warren li...@hireahit.com
Various online DNS diagnostic tools throw warnings,
In article mailman.1080.1358373225.11945.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Chuck Swiger cswi...@mac.com wrote:
On Jan 16, 2013, at 1:42 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
In article mailman.1077.1358370123.11945.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Chuck Swiger cswi...@mac.com wrote:
On Jan 16, 2013, at 12:40 PM,
On Jan 16, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
[ ... ]
On Jan 16, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
Is there anything technically wrong with having a SOA MNAME field that
isn't listed as a NS record?
Sure. The SOA MNAME is expected to be the primary master nameserver for
the
In article mailman.1085.1358384707.11945.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Chuck Swiger cswi...@mac.com wrote:
On Jan 16, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
[ ... ]
On Jan 16, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
Is there anything technically wrong with having a SOA MNAME field that
isn't
Is there anything technically wrong with having a SOA MNAME field
that isn't listed as a NS record?
Not at all; that works fine.
The server listed as MNAME will host the zone and is authoritative
for the zone, but out of latency concerns it isn't ideal to have
other resolvers querying this
On 1/16/2013 22:17, Jan-Piet Mens wrote:
Is there anything technically wrong with having a SOA MNAME field
that isn't listed as a NS record?
Not at all; that works fine.
Thanks. That's what I thought, but I wanted to confirm that this
particular warning didn't have any backing in reality.
On 1/16/2013 13:53, Chuck Swiger wrote:
True, but I don't see much utility from a nameserver which can be dynamically
updated but not queried.
It *can* be queried, it's just not ideal as the machine has a fair
amount of load and has fairly high latency. Since I have secondaries in
colocation
19 matches
Mail list logo
