RE: Can bind be configured to not drop RR's from the cache when the upstream DNS server is unresponsive

2016-03-20 Thread Darcy Kevin (FCA)
Would they be receptive to letting you slave the zone? At least then you’d have the whole EXPIRE time before the names stopped resolving. If they’re concerned about security, then the transfers could be locked down by source IP address, or, if their software supports it, TSIG key. One of the do

Re: Can bind be configured to not drop RR's from the cache when the upstream DNS server is unresponsive

2016-03-20 Thread Ron
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 3:03 AM, Barry Margolin wrote: > > That's feasible if you can reconfigure all the client machines to do > this. It's not very scalable if you have a network of machines running > different operating systems, and you'd like to have your central > resolver take care of all th

Re: Multiple A records and reverse DNS

2016-03-20 Thread Phil Mayers
On 18/03/16 14:52, /dev/rob0 wrote: On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 10:04:05AM -0400, Thomas Schulz wrote: I turns out that it is harder than I thought to allow incomming connections from both providers at the same time, so I may not do that after all. Multiple route tables (and rules to choose the ap

Re: Can bind be configured to not drop RR's from the cache when the upstream DNS server is unresponsive

2016-03-20 Thread Barry Margolin
In article , Mark Andrews wrote: > How do you actually expect this to ever work in real life? I'm pretty sure Google DNS does this. Other resolver operators often get complaints about "Why can't I look up through your DNS servers when I can do it through Google DNS?" > Caches will generally