On Mar 4, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Verne Britton wrote:
I have been testing and testing and either just don't see what I'm doing
wrong, or have a learning block :-)
current thinking is that a open recursion DNS server is bad, so we want to
implement an allow-recursion clause; perhaps even
I have been testing and testing and either just don't see what I'm doing wrong,
or have a learning block :-)
current thinking is that a open recursion DNS server is bad, so we want to
implement an allow-recursion clause; perhaps even make some views so our local
users still recurse while the
In article mailman.1592.1362422631.11945.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Verne Britton ve...@wvnet.edu wrote:
I have been testing and testing and either just don't see what I'm doing
wrong, or have a learning block :-)
current thinking is that a open recursion DNS server is bad, so we want to
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
On 3/4/2013 3:26 PM, Verne Britton wrote:
On 3/4/2013 2:45 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
In article mailman.1592.1362422631.11945.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Verne Britton ve...@wvnet.edu wrote:
I have been testing and testing and either just don't see what I'm doing
wrong, or have a learning
On 3/4/2013 3:26 PM, Verne Britton wrote:
1. serve the A records as authoritative
2. somehow handle resolutions coming at me for the CNAMEs
3. not have a public open recursive server
From: Kevin Darcy k...@chrysler.com
You can achieve all of that as long as you provide recursive
6 matches
Mail list logo
