On 27/11/12 09:13, Cathy Almond wrote:
It's tricky to answer your questions since this was on BIND 9.7.0 which
has been substantially updated between 9.7.0 and 9.7.7 (the CHANGES log
of 9.7.7 might give you some clues). But also of particular relevance
to this would be the change in how automat
Hi,
My original post was about writing a report to optimize our DNS servers and
the report needed to address two questions. Based on the answers I
received, I will write our servers are already optimized and no further
tuning is needed.
Now about the two specific questions for the report.
Q1 --
-Original Message-
From: Matus UHLAR - fantomas
Date: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:28 PM
To: "bind-users@lists.isc.org"
Subject: truncated responses vs. minimal-responses?
>Hello,
>
>last few weeks I have seen many discussions over UDP truncating and using
>"minimal-responses yes;" to
Hello,
last few weeks I have seen many discussions over UDP truncating and using
"minimal-responses yes;" to prevent BIDN from doing that.
I've read article stating that nameserver should avoid truncating packets
even by skipping additional and authority sections in its responses, which
should m
"Adamiec, Lawrence" wrote on 11/26/2012
01:12:48 PM:
> To the best of my knowledge, there are no problems with our DNS. We
> only host 25 domains.
>
> The report must also address these two specific questions:
>
> 1. Why does www.kentlaw.iit.edu load quicker than kentlaw.iit.edu in
> any bro
On 26/11/12 14:47, Phil Mayers wrote:
> All,
>
> Up front, I should note that this was on a hidden master server which
> was running 9.7.0 (since updated). So it may not work this way on
> current versions of bind.
>
> We (well, I) had a little accident recently when rolling a ZSK. We use
> "auto
6 matches
Mail list logo
