Re: Change in statistics format

/2012 12:22 PM, Evan Hunt wrote: On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:44:12AM -0500, John Miller wrote: Hello everyone, When did BIND 9 switch over from the older The new stats counters were added in 9.5.0. They're in all currently- supported releases; the old format is fully deprecated now. Incidentally

Re: User wanting to use a .local domain to host DNS

Hey there Hal, It doesn't look like .local is officially reserved (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2606), but .localdomain definitely is. John John Miller Systems Engineer Brandeis University 781-736-4619 johnm...@brandeis.edu On 11/14/2012 10:02 AM, King, Harold Clyde (Hal) wrote: I'm a bit

Re: User wanting to use a .local domain to host DNS

Thanks for the catch--guess I was writing a little too quickly this morning. .localhost is reserved; .localdomain isn't. John On 11/14/2012 11:17 AM, SM wrote: At 07:15 14-11-2012, John Miller wrote: It doesn't look like .local is officially reserved (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2606

Re: Spotty Lookups on One of Our Networks

. ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users -- John Miller Systems Engineer Brandeis University johnm...@brandeis.edu (781) 736-4619

Re: Spotty Lookups on One of Our Networks

Hi Martin, Just to clarify, how many domain names are doing this for you? Are they all remote domains, or are some of them okstate.edu domains? John -- John Miller Systems Engineer Brandeis University johnm...@brandeis.edu On 10/30/2012 04:10 PM, Martin McCormick wrote: I don't

Re: transparent DNS load-balancing with a Cisco ACE

wrote: On 25/10/12 15:54, John Miller wrote: Is BIND associating each request with a particular socket, then? It would certainly make sense if that were the case. This was something I didn't fully realize. Yes. Something else I didn't fully realize was that by default, BIND binds to _each_

transparent DNS load-balancing with a Cisco ACE

tables seems like the way to go, but lack of probes is a deal-breaker on this end. -- John Miller Systems Engineer Brandeis University johnm...@brandeis.edu ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list

Re: transparent DNS load-balancing with a Cisco ACE

IMO, the only boxes which should have IPs in both public and private netblocks should be your firewall/NAT routing boxes. That's how we usually have our servers set up--the load balancer gets the public IPs, the servers get the private IPs, and we use NAT to translate between the two.

Re: issues with BIND since a change of server

Hi Thomas, Since this is Ubuntu, what does /var/log/syslog have to say about the matter? Do you have any specific configuration for rndc controls, or are you primarily using the stock Ubuntu named.conf.local and named.conf.options? John On 10/04/2012 11:27 AM, Thomas Manson wrote: Hi,

Re: using 127.0.0.1 in resolv.conf

Thanks, Kevin. It sounds like if there was a bug in the resolver when using 127.0.0.1, it's long since been resolved. For the reason of portability alone, 127.0.0.1's a good choice, and what we've been doing. I hadn't considered the NIC offloading issue, but I suppose it _could_ happen.

Re: using 127.0.0.1 in resolv.conf

On 07/24/2012 05:10 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: No. It was a kernel bug. The kernel wouldn't let you un-bind the socket. When you sent to 127.0.0.1 the local address was set to 127.0.0.1 then when you sent to some other address 127.0.0.1 was used as the source address which doesn't work. Modern

using 127.0.0.1 in resolv.conf

Google search for 'bind resolver source address bug' didn't yield much. John -- John Miller Systems Engineer Brandeis University 781-736-4619 johnm...@brandeis.edu ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from

Re: Moving DNS out of non-cooperative provider

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: In message 4fdf631a.4060...@brandeis.edu, John Miller writes: Hi Alexander, We've actually run into this before. Once upon a time, RCN cable used to run some slave servers for us, but we've long since moved away from

Re: Moving DNS out of non-cooperative provider

Hi Alexander, We've actually run into this before. Once upon a time, RCN cable used to run some slave servers for us, but we've long since moved away from them, including zone transfers. We yanked them from our registrar a long time ago, and life was good. For whatever reason, RCN's still

Re: Can I build a new DNS/BIND system parallel to our existing DNS production system?

Hi Samad, It's entirely possible to roll out a parallel BIND installation. We're doing something similar at Brandeis right now--a mix of BIND and PowerDNS servers. I take it that your current BIND setup is purely authoritative? Or is it also handling recursive requests? John On

<    1   2