Hmm, I wonder if qname-minimisation is at issue here. My trace dies with:
85.191.131.in-addr.arpa. 1800 IN NS fs838.click-network.com.
85.191.131.in-addr.arpa. 1800 IN NS ns102.click-network.com.
couldn't get address for 'fs838.click-network.com': not found
couldn't get
On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 4:38 AM Jakob Bohm via bind-users
wrote:
> Having the DoH server as a standalone process talking to DNS/TCP would
> be a solid implementation given the constant flow of changes made to
> HTTP(S) by the Big 5.
Perhaps, but for reference here is the relevant section of the
it'll matter when you decide to add DNSSEC to the zone, and it's also
good hygiene in the absence of DNSSEC so that any future maintainer
can be reminded that there is a subdomain at that name when looking at
the parent.
--
Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 4:32 AM Greg Choules via bind-users
wrote:
>> From a quick look in Wireshark at what my own server (9.18.8) is doing, this
>> looks like Akamai not responding correctly to a BIND QNAME minimisation
>> query. Here's one response, from 95.101.36.192 for example, of many
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 3:34 AM muhanad wrote:
> I have a main domain ( aa.example.com) with hunderds of subdomains (
> bb.aa.example.com). I made a wildcard record to forward all subdomains (bb.)
> to a list of addresses in round-robin fashion. The problem I am fscing is
> the wildcard is
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 5:31 AM Danilo Godec via bind-users
wrote:
> I have an authoritative DNS server for a domain, but I was also going to
> use the same server as a recursive DNS for my internal network, limiting
> recursion by the IP. Apparently, this is a bad idea that can lead to
> cache
On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 8:46 AM Roberto Carna wrote:
> Thanks to all of you, is it possible to use nslookup in order to
> update DNS records from Linux hosts to a Windows DNS server (not BIND)
Not nslookup, but nsupdate as Brian Cuttler said. nslookup is purely
a query tool;
nsupdate implements
On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 12:19 PM Roberto Carna wrote:
> I have several hosts with static IP's / hostnames and I want to
> register them to our private BIND DNS, and they should be updated if
> the IP or hostname changes.
>
> Is there any way to do what I need ? Any Linux/Windows client to
>
On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 1:38 AM Mark Andrews wrote:
> AA is NOT set so it is not a valid answer to the question.
Ahh that was the part that I overlooked.
--
tale
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 8:20 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
> This is an error with the delegation of ok.contact. The NS records at the
> delegation point do
> not match those at the zone apex.
I'm curious if this is a re-purposing of the existing "non-improving
referral" message. I totally get how
On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 8:42 AM Roee Mayerowicz wrote:
> Do you know of a way to ask multiple DNS queries in a recursive bind server
> at the same packet\request?
> Using DoH might work? How? Is there a plugin which does that?
The short answer is no, but it might not be answering the question
> >Are the queries refused because of the dot (.)? In the query log, I also
> > found some 28 IN ANY queries from 7 IPs for xxx.at.fragolina.it, which
> > probably got away with a NXDOMAIN.
>
> no. the dot is just the root domain.
Correct that . is the root domain, but I'd say the answer is a
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 4:30 AM Wilfred Sarmiento via bind-users
wrote:
> Is DNS Bind SRV record can detect the Server's availability? If yes, how?
Could you provide more information about your goal? I don't fully
understand the question.
For my reading, the answer is basically no, in that an
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 3:48 AM Prasanna Mathivanan (pmathiva) via
bind-users wrote:
> Whenever we have broken delegation as domain owners didn't follow proper RFC,
> the default behaviour of the query hits " _." which
> doesn’t exist.? And we get NXDOMAIN or SERVFAIL response.
Going back
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 10:22 AM Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
>> On 16.10.20 09:56, Bob Harold wrote:
> >The BIND ARM (9.16.2) says:
> >"There may be one or more forwarders, and they are queried in turn until
> >the list is exhausted or an answer is found."
> >
> >But [an old mailinglist post]
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 6:01 PM Ben Lavender wrote:
> 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?
AFAIK there's
> Instead of the way it is now:
> # nslookup 192.168.2.206
> 206.2.168.192.in-addr.arpa name =
> server1.ctois.local.2.168.192.in-addr.arpa.
In your zone file be sure that the name that is the target of the PTR
records has a final dot. Without the trailing dot, the names are
interpreted
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:42 AM Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
> again, why you query for 250.0-24.199.212.125.in-addr.arpa
> under normal circumstances there's no point of querying that name.
>
Well yes and no. While an individual user would typically not,
resolvers sure will. While trying to
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 11:05 AM Anand Buddhdev wrote:
> There is no harm in copying the file into the chroot. It will get rid of
> the warning.
With the caveat that you have to be sure that if you keep the original
copy outside of the chroot, you have to be sure updates get reflected
inside the
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:06 AM @lbutlr wrote:
> On 17 Jul 2020, at 11:56, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > In fact, the ONLY reason that the name "bind9" was ever even coined
> > at all was because the changes from bind8 both in the syntax of the
> > config file and how the program operated they
20 matches
Mail list logo
