Re: TXT with dot in NAME for ACME via dynamic update

It looks like it worked. Your test is asking for A records, not the TXT records for the name. Try, $ dig _acme-challenge.imap.lrau.net. txt @localhost On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 10:31 AM Axel Rau wrote: > > > Am 14.03.2020 um 18:14 schrieb Chuck Aurora : > > it seems, the dynamic update protocol

[RESOLVED] Re: TXT with dot in NAME for ACME via dynamic update (Axel Rau)

> Am 14.03.2020 um 19:21 schrieb Timothe Litt : > > dig _acme-challenge.imap.lrau.net. > > is missing a record type. The default is A. > > > dig _acme-challenge.imap.lrau.net. txt > > will likely give you better results > Natural. (-; It seems to work: ;; ANSWER SECTION:

Re: with dot in NAME for ACME via dynamic update (Axel Rau)

Er, dig _acme-challenge.imap.lrau.net . is missing a record type.  The default is A. dig _acme-challenge.imap.lrau.net . txt will likely give you better results Timothe Litt ACM Distinguished Engineer

Re: TXT with dot in NAME for ACME via dynamic update

> Am 14.03.2020 um 18:14 schrieb Chuck Aurora : > >> it seems, the dynamic update protocol does not allow things like >> _acme-challenge.some-host.some.domain TXT >> "tR0VhMRfb4v5WsctEgoD3aWNRJ73n2wqn9hlTPE9pA0" >> because there is no zone >> some-host.some.domain > > I am

Re: TXT with dot in NAME for ACME via dynamic update

On 2020-03-14 12:03, Axel Rau wrote: it seems, the dynamic update protocol does not allow things like _acme-challenge.some-host.some.domain TXT "tR0VhMRfb4v5WsctEgoD3aWNRJ73n2wqn9hlTPE9pA0" because there is no zone some-host.some.domain I am pretty sure that is not correct, but we

TXT with dot in NAME for ACME via dynamic update

Hi all, it seems, the dynamic update protocol does not allow things like _acme-challenge.some-host.some.domain TXT "tR0VhMRfb4v5WsctEgoD3aWNRJ73n2wqn9hlTPE9pA0" because there is no zone some-host.some.domain However named accepts such constructs, if loaded from text zone

Re: recursive resolver

Hi there, On Thu, 12 Mar 2020, G.W. Haywood wrote: On Thu, 12 Mar 2020, ShubhamGoyal wrote: How can i improve my recursive resolver speed. I wonder if you have some kind of networking misconfiguration which results in timeouts while BIND is waiting for responses. Perhaps you will learn