On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 05:59:08PM -0400,
Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote
a message of 52 lines which said:
Does anyone else find the bind-users list to be very slow?
Same problem for me.
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
On 31/05/11 09:28, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
This problem could be avoided by providing the same data, but differently
sorted, correct?
On 31.05.11 12:27, Phil Mayers wrote:
Not really. Client side sorting may take place (e.g. to comply with RFC
3484 policies in calls to getaddrinfo)
Zitat von Stephane Bortzmeyer bortzme...@nic.fr:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 05:59:08PM -0400,
Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote
a message of 52 lines which said:
Does anyone else find the bind-users list to be very slow?
Same problem for me.
No wonder the list is slow if everyone send
Does anyone else find the bind-users list to be very slow?
Yes, very. [Pressing 's'end at 09:54 CET]
-JP
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
On 5/31/2011 7:39 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
It is still a bad idea. Fixing the clients so they work well with
multi-homed servers not only works today with mostly IPv4 servers
but also works well with dual stack server and IPv6 only servers.
You don't have to have artifially low TTLs on the DNS
On 01/06/11 08:11, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 31/05/11 09:28, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
This problem could be avoided by providing the same data, but differently
sorted, correct?
On 31.05.11 12:27, Phil Mayers wrote:
Not really. Client side sorting may take place (e.g. to comply
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 09:54:04AM +0200, Jan-Piet Mens wrote:
Does anyone else find the bind-users list to be very slow?
Yes, very. [Pressing 's'end at 09:54 CET]
I think it's moderated. Sending at 11:16 UTC.
--
Offlist mail to this address is discarded unless
/dev/rob0 or not-spam
7 matches
Mail list logo