On 07/08/2011 05:11 PM, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
It should be possible to set up an authoritative-only name server so
that it does not recurse for anyone [except perhaps itself], but still
allow someone to get a full resolution of a name whose canonical name is
elsewhere. IMHBUCO.
Why?
The
Hi BIND Users,
In one of our customer sites, the DNS process was found running on
multiple cache serversbut is was not responding to a dig @localhost.
The named version is BIND 9.5.1-P2 with security fixes from BIND
9.5.2-P3.
The named process was in a hung state. The recursive cache could not
On 07/09/2011 10:26, TCPWave Customer Care wrote:
Hi BIND Users,
In one of our customer sites, the DNS process was found running on
multiple cache serversbut is was not responding to a dig @localhost.
The named version is BIND 9.5.1-P2 with security fixes from BIND
9.5.2-P3.
FYI, this
At 00:04 08-07-2011, Chris Buxton wrote:
As for Kevin's assertion that the SOA record in the authority
section is required for a negative response, this is also incorrect.
RFC 2308 is a proposed standard, not a standard. Further, section 8
of this RFC does not say explicitly that an SOA must
4 matches
Mail list logo