On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 23:20, Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris)
wrote:
> Hi Dotan!
>
Hello hello!
> You might be blocking 53/udp and (or) 53/tcp port. Try to query your
> problematic server from some other location rather than the site this
> server is installed on.
>
The ports aren't blocked as
Hi Imran,
Mon, 4 Oct 2010 20:33:02 -0400 "Imran" wrote:
> Sounds like a resolv.conf issue ... make sure that you have an
> entry in the resolv.conf file that maps ns1.example.de to 1.1.1.1
> and ns2.example.de to 1.1.2.2
You're wrong. The resolv.conf file has nothing to do with
hostname-to-IP o
apart from my dig for you not giving real information..
On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 23:08 +0200, Dotan Cohen wrote:
>
> // On 1.1.1.1
> [r...@1.1.1.1]# cat /etc/named.conf
> options {
> directory "/etc";
>
Why are you specifying /etc here?
I suggest you use /var/named
>pid-
Sounds like a resolv.conf issue ... make sure that you have an entry in the
resolv.conf file that maps ns1.example.de to 1.1.1.1 and ns2.example.de to
1.1.2.2
-Original Message-
From: bind-users-bounces+imran=netwave...@lists.isc.org
[mailto:bind-users-bounces+imran=netwave...@lists.isc.
On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 17:29 -0500, Lyle Giese wrote:
> Dotan Cohen wrote:
> > The ports aren't blocked as another site (example.eu) hosted on the
> > 1.1.1.1 server works fine. The working site has both nameservers
> > pointed to that same server (on two different IP addresses on eth0 and
> >
You should first verify that you see the packets arriving to ns1.example.de
- tcpdump should do the work.
Then, enable the query log and ensure that BIND sees the query.
Again, the logs are your friends.
-Original Message-
From: Dotan Cohen [mailto:dotanco...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, Oct
Are your servers running virtualized?
No dia 2010/10/04, às 23:56, "Dotan Cohen"
escreveu:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 23:37, Greg Whynott
wrote:
someone with way more bind clues than I would be able to give you a
better answer.the error returned begs two questions..
1. is this server
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 00:29, Lyle Giese wrote:
> I would like to help but since you are refusing to post the real ip address
> or the real hostnames or the real domain names involved, I can not. I could
> do some testing from here to see if your firewall was configured correctly
> or what the vi
Can you successfuly telnet port 53 from an external host?
Have you seen your logs? There must be something logged.
No dia 2010/10/04, às 23:56, "Dotan Cohen"
escreveu:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 23:37, Greg Whynott
wrote:
someone with way more bind clues than I would be able to give you a
b
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 23:37, Greg Whynott wrote:
> someone with way more bind clues than I would be able to give you a better
> answer. the error returned begs two questions..
>
> 1. is this server behind or running a local firewall?
No.
> 2. is bind actually listening on the proper interfa
Mon, 4 Oct 2010 23:41:13 +0200 Dotan Cohen wrote:
>> You might be blocking 53/udp and (or) 53/tcp port. Try to query
>> your problematic server from some other location rather than the
>> site this server is installed on.
>>
>
> The ports aren't blocked as another site (example.eu) hosted on
> th
Dotan Cohen wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 23:20, Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris)
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dotan!
>>
>>
>
> Hello hello!
>
>
>> You might be blocking 53/udp and (or) 53/tcp port. Try to query your
>> problematic server from some other location rather than the site this
>> server
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 23:20, Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris)
wrote:
> Hi Dotan!
>
Hello hello!
> You might be blocking 53/udp and (or) 53/tcp port. Try to query your
> problematic server from some other location rather than the site this
> server is installed on.
>
The ports aren't blocked as a
someone with way more bind clues than I would be able to give you a better
answer.the error returned begs two questions..
1. is this server behind or running a local firewall?
2. is bind actually listening on the proper interface?
you could confirm #2 by typing 'nslookup ns1.example.de 1.1.1
Hi Dotan!
Mon, 4 Oct 2010 23:08:43 +0200 Dotan Cohen wrote:
> I am configuring BIND on two servers: ns1.example.de on a server with
> IP address 1.1.1.1 and ns2.example.de on a server with IP address
> 1.1.2.2. BIND starts fine on both servers, but when I try to
> configure
> my domain name in t
I am configuring BIND on two servers: ns1.example.de on a server with
IP address 1.1.1.1 and ns2.example.de on a server with IP address
1.1.2.2. BIND starts fine on both servers, but when I try to configure
my domain name in the registrar's control panel I get this error:
"""
Error : Unable to quer
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 11:16, Imri Zvik wrote:
> What does the logs say?
Thanks, Imri, the logs complain about /etc/db.cache. I copied
/etc/db.cache from the ns1 server to the ns2 server and bind stopped
complaining.
> Is the server chrooted or not?
no
> And I think you want to use "type slave
Hello,
recently, I ran into a debate on the merits of negative TTL caching.
Digging a little into the issue I found that apparently
- no version of Bind currently supports min-(n)cache-ttl parameters
- MS DNS apparently has such a function
- somebody (possibly Michael Milligan) at some time put
There is a lot of assumed magic with DNS. It would be nice if things were
possible but they aren't.
Think for a moment. 'I changed the IPOD address but my registrar isn't picking
it up!' Well, how do you expect them to if you don't tell them? They don't have
a crystal ball to read your mind or
Evan:
> My statement about the expected behavior (i.e., that you'd see this log
> message only on the first start, and not thereafter) turns out to be
> true
> only if there's actually a managed key that needs maintaining. If you
> don't have any such keys, named won't create a file to save them
> Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 17:29:33 +0200
> From: Anand Buddhdev
> Sender: bind-users-bounces+oberman=es@lists.isc.org
>
> On 04/10/2010 16:01, online-reg wrote:
>
> > Hi All: I think this is a little OT, but Iâm wondering why changes to
> > my NS records arenât propagating when my NS is a
Hi All: I think this is a little OT, but I'm wondering why changes to
my NS records aren't propagating when my NS is authoritative for my
domain?
enigmedia.com is registered at NetSol and delegated to my NS:
ns.enigmedia.com (running on bind9/fedora)
ns1.enigmedia.com (running on bind9/Freebsd
On 04/10/2010 16:01, online-reg wrote:
> Hi All: I think this is a little OT, but I’m wondering why changes to
> my NS records aren’t propagating when my NS is authoritative for my
> domain?
>
> enigmedia.com is registered at NetSol and delegated to my NS:
>
> ns.enigmedia.com (running on bind9/
> The directory is writable. I run bind chrooted and the directory exists,
> is owned by the named user and is writable by the named user.
But you don't have managed-keys or dnssec-lookaside auto configured, right?
I was confused, and thought you did. If you had, that would mean this bug
was fair
These are glue records for the delegation of your domain. You must
contact Network Solutions to have them changed. I have done this type
of thing in a long time, but they have a form somewhere.
Regards,
Mike
On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 09:01:18AM -0500, online-reg wrote:
> Hi All: I think this is
On Oct 4 2010, online-reg wrote:
Hi All: I think this is a little OT, but I'm wondering why changes to
my NS records aren't propagating when my NS is authoritative for my domain?
enigmedia.com is registered at NetSol and delegated to my NS:
ns.enigmedia.com (running on bind9/fedora)
ns1.enigme
Forgive the top post.
The directory is writable. I run bind chrooted and the directory exists, is
owned
by the named user and is writable by the named user.
--
Jack Tavares
"How many more can we sell with this button?"
From: David Forrest [...@maplepark.
Hi All: I think this is a little OT, but I’m wondering why changes to my NS
records aren’t propagating when my NS is authoritative for my domain?
enigmedia.com is registered at NetSol and delegated to my NS:
ns.enigmedia.com (running on bind9/fedora)
ns1.enigmedia.com (running on bind9/Freebsd)
On 2/10/10 7:18 AM, "Joerg Dorchain" wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 05:39:16PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>>
>> On 01.10.10 12:39, Joerg Dorchain wrote:
>>> Well, I could agree agree that "wrong" means not thought of by
>>> RfC-Designers and bind implementators (yet).
>>
>> proba
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 12:13:33PM -0400,
John Wingenbach wrote
a message of 440 lines which said:
> NS records must point to an A record.
Or a record.
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo
> 02-Oct-2010 17:33:53.125 general: error: managed-keys-zone ./IN: loading
> from master file managed-keys.bind failed: file not found
>
> I've googled around but am not clear on what's causing this error? Does this
> file need to be created manually for BIND to be able to write to it? I have
31 matches
Mail list logo
