Hello,
1) the dig command, as shown, does not ask an authoritative name server
for eeoc.gov.
but rather addresses a locally configured caching name server
(10.120.11.107).
(which may explain the difference in size - 1726 bytes -
as opposed to the 3918 bytes of Doug Barton)
((some
'_' is an illegal character in hostnames in the DNS...
Yeah, I got hosed by that one by a consultant.
MCSE per chance? [Sorry; couldn't resist.]
-JP
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from
Thanks.
2011/9/27 Jan-Piet Mens jpmens@gmail.com
On Tue Sep 27 2011 at 17:32:22 CEST, Issam Harrathi wrote:
and you say here it's cached for 30 seconds?!
Evan said:
and we've discussed implementing it in BIND9, but haven't had time yet.
In other words, they are *not* cached in
Am Tue, 27 Sep 2011 22:03:44 +0200
schrieb Tom Schmitt tomschm...@gmx.de:
The odd part is that both NS3 and NS4 weren't able to request ixfr
transfers.
Shouldn't allow-transfer cover these kind of transfer requests as well?
First: Do you have statements provide ixfr; and
Is your firewall Cisco based?
There is a known default setting in Cisco with respect to packet size
for DNS. Our network guys run into this anytime they do an upgrade,
etc. and have to go in and update the setting.
Steve.
On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 15:45 -0500, Brad Bendily wrote:
When trying
Hi all,
I'm sure this has been asked trillions of times but since I couldn't
find any concrete answer/reference in google I am asking you guys in
this list. Sorry if anyone thinks this a dumb question or something
very obvious.
The thing is that i want users redirected to 'www.domain.com' even
Thanks Jeff,
But I really only wrote that as an example :) . The real question is
what is best or what is recommended, two A RR (one for domain, one for
www) or a single A RR for domain and a CNAME RR for www, is one way
better than the other or can I choose either way?
Cheers!,
Fred.
On Wed,
If you set your SOA properly to use @ (which means this zone) your A
records should be:
domain.com. A 1.1.1.1
www A 1.1.1.1
The SOA should append the domain.com to every record not terminated by a dot
so that www is read as www.domain.com. Similarly
this is the stuff what should be done by webserver rather than by DNS. i,e,
Apache rewrite will do that.
在 2011-9-28 下午10:29，feralert feral...@gmail.com写道：
Hi all,
I'm sure this has been asked trillions of times but since I couldn't
find any concrete answer/reference in google I am asking you
Either is fine. Using the cname would require a single update if your ip
changes, but prevents other records at the same level. So you couldn't
attach mx for instance at example.com and www.example.com if you wanted to.
Neither is wrong and both have pros and cons
-Ben Croswell
On Sep 28, 2011
If you use two A records, your web server needs to be setup to handle both
names. If you use a CNAME, you only need to handle the single A record
name in the server.
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:36 AM, feralert feral...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Jeff,
But I really only wrote that as an example :)
+1
All of our redirects are either done by rewrite rules in Apache or Jboss or on
our load balancer. We don’t do any in DNS.
From: bind-users-bounces+jlightner=water@lists.isc.org
[mailto:bind-users-bounces+jlightner=water@lists.isc.org] On
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2011-09-28 9:36 AM, feralert wrote:
Thanks Jeff,
But I really only wrote that as an example :) . The real question
is what is best or what is recommended, two A RR (one for domain,
one for www) or a single A RR for domain and a CNAME RR for
That makes no sense.
If he didn't have a dns entry for both sites, how does the user get to site
without the dns entry to be rewritten by Apache?
-Ben Croswell
On Sep 28, 2011 10:52 AM, 风河 short...@gmail.com wrote:
this is the stuff what should be done by webserver rather than by DNS.
i,e,
Right – for simple domains I think having separate A records is best as I
wrote. Many more complex domains (do digs on
www.google.comhttp://www.google.com/, www.yahoo.comhttp://www.yahoo.com/
and www.microsoft.comhttp://www.microsoft.com/) use CNAME records but often
enough it is because they
domain.com A1.1.1.1
www.domain.com A1.1.1.1
OR
domain.com A1.1.1.1
www.domain.com CNAME domain.com
On 28.09.11 10:49, Peter Pauly wrote:
If you use two A records, your web server needs to be setup to handle both
names. If you
I think it's splitting hair but cname might be a bit more efficient. At
least in the webserver end.
In practise, I don't think there's a real difference. You can choose
which ever feels better :)
Jukka
28.9.2011 17:36, feralert kirjoitti:
Thanks Jeff,
But I really only wrote that as an
Webserver still has to get the request, so one way or the other is
required anyway :)
28.9.2011 17:43, ?? kirjoitti:
this is the stuff what should be done by webserver rather than by DNS.
i,e, Apache rewrite will do that.
? 2011-9-28 ??10:29,feralert feral...@gmail.com
On Wed Sep 28 2011 at 16:43:17 CEST, 风河 wrote:
this is the stuff what should be done by webserver rather than by DNS. i,e,
Apache rewrite will do that.
That is incorrect. DNS is needed to find the Web server. Web server
rewriting/configuration is needed to find the site.
-JP
Hi,
I'm looking at the output from 9.7's rndc stats, and I see both
incoming and outgoing statistics. I'm trying to get a true queries per
second stat from these numbers. Wouldn't this be both incoming+outgoing
queries? Or, from a performance standpoint should I only be concerned
about
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 16:19 +0200, feralert wrote:
The thing is that i want users redirected to 'www.domain.com' even
when they just type the domain name 'domain.com'.
In order to do so I am not sure if its best to have one A RR for each
or have an A RR for the domain and a CNAME RR pointing
On Sep 28 2011, Baird, Josh wrote:
I'm looking at the output from 9.7's rndc stats, and I see both
incoming and outgoing statistics. I'm trying to get a true queries per
second stat from these numbers. Wouldn't this be both incoming+outgoing
queries?
That depends entirely on what you mean
On 9/28/11 5:32 AM, Steve Arntzen i...@arntzen.us wrote:
Is your firewall Cisco based?
There is a known default setting in Cisco with respect to packet size
for DNS. Our network guys run into this anytime they do an upgrade,
etc. and have to go in and update the setting.
This bit me the
On 9/28/11 5:32 AM, Steve Arntzen i...@arntzen.us wrote:
Is your firewall Cisco based?
Yes. The firewall is Cisco based.
However, the main problem there is, there are several firewalls before
leaving our network and my dept doesn't manage all of them.
There is a known default setting in
Jan-Piet wrote on 09/28/2011 02:16:53 AM:
Yeah, I got hosed by that one by a consultant.
MCSE per chance? [Sorry; couldn't resist.]
After 15 years I don't recall. Based on that advice, I have 10 servers
with names containing underscores. And Lotus Notes/Domino likes to look
up the
All true, but if you don't have some sort of DNS record for both
example.com and www.example.com, then all the rewrite rules in the world
won't help.
For all we know, the web server doesn't care what the URL is since it is
the only site hosted on that server and answers to all GETs.
Jeff
26 matches
Mail list logo
