On 07/01/14 14.16, Bob McDonald wrote:
> > Unless the goal is to move all DNS services off that subnet. Our
> network
> > staff would love to reclaim the /24 our DNS servers are tying up
> with very
> > little else on it wasting 250 addresses.
>
> I'm not sure I'm describing a properly configured
> Unless the goal is to move all DNS services off that subnet. Our network
> staff would love to reclaim the /24 our DNS servers are tying up with very
> little else on it wasting 250 addresses.
I'm not sure I'm describing a properly configured anycast environment
well. Since in anycast the clie
From: Bob McDonald
> Of course, anycast would have solved this issue by allowing one to
> add/remove a server from a properly configured environment without
> affecting the clients...
Unless the goal is to move all DNS services off that subnet. Our network
staff would love to reclaim the /24
Of course, anycast would have solved this issue by allowing one to
add/remove a server from a properly configured environment without
affecting the clients...
> On 03/01/2014 18:00, wbr...@e1b.org wrote:
>> From: Mark Andrews
>>> After that specify a final date for them to fix their machines by
>
> From: "Nicolas C."
> > Or really mess with them and answer all A queries with 199.181.132.249
>
> It's not a bad idea. I could wildcard all requests to an internal HTTP
> server saying that the DNS configuration of the client is deprecated.
But that's not as much fun as sending them someplac
On 05/01/14 21.55, Nicolas C. wrote:
>
>
> As I said in my original request : I did the query logging / warning
> but it had no effect.
>
> I could hold them at gunpoint until they change their configuration
> but we have strict gun laws in France :)
>
Personally I would cut off access for all tha
On 05/01/2014 18:17, Sten Carlsen wrote:
You might also make a list of those who use the old server, send a
message (assuming the management system allows identification) that
the service goes down at a specific date in e.g. a month from that
date. And then remove it. Threats are not much worth i
You might also make a list of those who use the old server, send a
message (assuming the management system allows identification) that the
service goes down at a specific date in e.g. a month from that date. And
then remove it. Threats are not much worth if the are not followed through.
The point
On 05/01/2014 13:25, Timothe Litt wrote:
To get people's attention, NXDOMAIN to www.* queries is often reasonably
Interesting idea; implemented how?
It may be better to simply alias (if necessary, route) the old IP
Piece of advice for anyone not already doing this; when you deploy
recursi
On 04-Jan-14 14:58, Nicolas C. wrote:
On 03/01/2014 18:00, wbr...@e1b.org wrote:
From: Mark Andrews
After that specify a final date for them to fix their machines by
after which you will send NXDOMAIN responses. Sometimes sending a
poisoned reponse is the only way to get peoples attention.
On 03/01/2014 18:00, wbr...@e1b.org wrote:
From: Mark Andrews
After that specify a final date for them to fix their machines by
after which you will send NXDOMAIN responses. Sometimes sending a
poisoned reponse is the only way to get peoples attention.
zone "." {
type master;
file "em
From: Mark Andrews
> After that specify a final date for them to fix their machines by
> after which you will send NXDOMAIN responses. Sometimes sending a
> poisoned reponse is the only way to get peoples attention.
>
> zone "." {
>type master;
>file "empty";
> };
>
> empty:
> @ 0 IN SO
In message <52c5e922.6030...@nryc.fr>, "Nicolas C." writes:
> Hello,
>
> Is it possible to make bind answering slowly to requests ?
>
> Here is the context : we installed new DNS servers but some clients with
> static IP configuration are still using the old ones.
>
> We enabled queries loggin
13 matches
Mail list logo
