Any logs?
Regards
Ben Lavender
On Mon, 23 May 2022, 21:52 Lefteris Tsintjelis via bind-users, <
bind-users@lists.isc.org> wrote:
> I must be missing something. Any ideas why does it fail? Everything
> seems normal. Works well with Windows 2016. Downgrading to 9.16 works
> agai
Thanks, yes the second is actually the aim. We don't have secondaries
since we use ADDS and BIND simply acts as a recursive service for the
other internal domains.
On 10/09/2020 16:01, Carl Byington wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Thu, 2020-09-10 at 15:35 +0100, Ben
Anyone think they may know the answer to this?
Thanks
Ben
On 07/09/2020 23:00, Ben Lavender wrote:
Hi,
Without having to alter the TTL of the existing RRs as well as the
default TTL. I know this can be done using cache-max-ttl to limit the
whole cache, but can this be done for say one
Hi,
Without having to alter the TTL of the existing RRs as well as the
default TTL. I know this can be done using cache-max-ttl to limit the
whole cache, but can this be done for say one single or multiple defined
domains only?
Thanks
___
Please
Some servers already do
Regards
Ben Lavender
On Mon, 15 Jun 2020, 19:02 DeCaro, James John (Jim) CIV DISA FE (USA) via
bind-users, wrote:
> Or you can call the slave servers 'secondary' servers.
>
>
> V/R
> Jim DeCaro
> DISA
> Systems Administrator
> Windows and Unix S
The terminology is fairly misleading, as in the slave is not doing the
work on-behalf of or instruction of the the master. But there is ways
for the master to influence the slaves; such as "allow-transfer".
I don't see the big issue with making a terminology change in this case.
On 15/06/2020
They go over this in the YT video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRbAigV2byE
It might not give you a total insight on how to configure it
step-by-step but enough
On 08/06/2020 06:13, ShubhamGoyal wrote:
Dear all,
I want to ask about bind
DoH
Don't suppose anyone knows this do they?
Thanks
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019, 16:21 Ben Lavender, wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Quick question, if we have a number of these IPs that do not reply
> (timeout), would BIND re-order these like it would with forwarder IPs? Or
> would it fail if it used
Hi,
When I setup static-stub zones with the global forwarders options
configured, BIND by design forwards the requests before using the stubs.
What is the best way around this so the stubs and cache are consulted first?
This is required for split-brain DNS.
Thanks
Regards
Ben Lavender
with type "static-stub" than
with type "stub".
Regards,
Chris Buxton
On May 7, 2019, at 4:08 PM, Ben Lavender wrote:
Hi,
I've been trying to configure a stub zone using both BIND 9.8x and 9.9x for
some split-brain internal DNS.
The problem I have is that any client that
Hi,
I've been trying to configure a stub zone using both BIND 9.8x and 9.9x
for some split-brain internal DNS.
The problem I have is that any client that requests the NS or SOA
records for this zone gets SERVFAIL. The BIND server populates the
/var/named/slaves/benlavender.co.uk.DB file
11 matches
Mail list logo
