Re: Allowing resolution of off-server CNAMEs
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 recursive resolver that is querying the authoritative will follow the CNAME anyway, since you're not authoritative for it. ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
BIND 9.5 Stopped listening on SUN Solaris 10
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 communicate with the roots. Therefore the queries were timing out causing a wide spread outage. Restarting the DNS process resolved the problem. The servers had an uptime of over 300 days. There are no significant lines in the /var/adm/messages or in named.log to pinpoint the problem. Could this version have anything to do with the recent BIND bug that was fixed via BIND 9.7.3-P3? Did our customer hit a known bug? Any help regarding this will be appreciated. general: info: sockmgt 1006e49b0: maximum number of FD events (64) received lines are seen in the logs. Thanks Sam. ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: BIND 9.5 Stopped listening on SUN Solaris 10
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 version is past EOL. Could this version have anything to do with the recent BIND bug that was fixed via BIND 9.7.3-P3? Probably not, but the software should be updated anyway. -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Re: about AUTHORITY SECTION
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 be RFC 2308 replaces Section 4.3.4 of RFC 1034. Irrespective of whether it is only at Proposed Standard, it is implemented by BIND 9. Regards, -sm ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
