On 03/04/2013 03:26 PM, Verne Britton wrote:
my test server (its up and down a lot) is at yournameserver with these two test
zones ... what I want to be able to do is:
1. serve the A records as authoritative
Looks like it's working in that regard:
jm@workstation:~$ dig +norecurse @yournamese
Thanks, Matus. Much appreciated--a SERVFAIL is much better than an
NXDOMAIN in this scenario.
John
On 02/21/2013 10:41 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 21.02.13 10:38, John Miller wrote:
Here's something I hadn't put much thought into until recently--it's
never been a
Hello everyone,
Here's something I hadn't put much thought into until recently--it's
never been a problem--how do resolvers behave when they receive a
request for an expired entry in the cache, but cannot contact the
authoritative nameserver? I'd imagine they return a SERVFAIL, but I
could s
Just to cover all the bases, you're doing your lookup directly against
your server, correct? Easy to accidentally query a different nameserver
and not see what you're expecting.
Otherwise I'd second Warren's suggestion to double-check your serial number.
John
On 02/20/2013 12:40 PM, Jsillim
ges.
John
On 11/15/2012 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 depr
Thank you! Just downloaded a copy, and looks pretty straightforward.
John
On 11/15/2012 12:13 PM, Jan-Piet Mens wrote:
Thanks, Phil. Those were my thoughts as well. For the present,
I'll write my own monitoring plugin to parse the XML data.
If you need some inspiration, I wrote a bit of C c
work for us.
John
On 11/15/2012 11:58 AM, Carsten Strotmann wrote:
Hello John,
John Miller writes:
Hello everyone,
When did BIND 9 switch over from the older
+++ Statistics Dump +++ (timestamp)
success #
referral #
nxrrset #
nxdomain #
recursion #
failure #
--- Statistics Dump --- (time
Thanks, Phil. Those were my thoughts as well. For the present, I'll
write my own monitoring plugin to parse the XML data.
John
On 11/15/2012 11:47 AM, Phil Mayers wrote:
On 15/11/12 16:44, John Miller wrote:
Hello everyone,
When did BIND 9 switch over from the older
I think tha
ormat, and wanted to be sure I had
my ducks in a row.
--
John Miller
Systems Engineer
Brandeis University
johnm...@brandeis.edu
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bind-users mailing list
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/ht
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
7 ms
>
> Barry Margolin writes:
> > I'm not sure what you mean by that sentence about getting authoritative
> > DNSs from X when it sbould be from Y. Can you post the actual dig?
> >
> > BTW, @servername doesn't mean much when using +trace, since +trace
> &
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
/25/2012 11:53 AM, Phil Mayers 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 w
Thanks Daniel. Good to hear of someone using NAT for DNS traffic. My
fears of it are mostly performance-based--every DNS query takes up a new
entry in the ACE's NAT table. In our case, that's thousands of queries
per second that the ACE has to keep in memory. I've shown it to be a
slight (2
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.
Here
raffic? Not tying up NAT
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 un
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,
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 r
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.
Th
e to a bug report and/or
changelog for this? A quick 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 h
ong shot!
John
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Mark Andrews 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 sl
eople's domains), so I've
contacted them again. Hopefully the cease-and-desist won't be necessary.
John
On 06/19/2012 06:45 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
Mark Andrews wrote:
In message<4fdf631a.4060...@brandeis.edu>, John Miller writes:
We've actually run into this bef
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
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 05/03/20
101 - 125 of 125 matches
Mail list logo