On 2013-05-08 20:58, Michael McNally wrote:
The flip side of this is that whatever you teach them they are going
to take out into the wider world with them. If you teach them to use
.local or .lan, some of them (at least) are going to continue using
.local or .lan long after your class is over,
On 5/8/13 9:33 AM, Jeremy P wrote:
However, there are times where registering a real domain just isn't
practical. For example, I'm not going to ask all of the students in my
courses to go out and register a .com for the semester. It would be a
waste of money as their systems never leave the loc
On 5/8/2013 23:53, Michael McNally wrote:
> On 5/8/13 9:43 AM, Carlos M. martinez wrote:
>> Agreed, but, subject tagging is very useful for those who prefer to have
>> things hit your inbox first, before archiving. And there seems to be a
>> lot more agreement on the tagging issue than on the reply
On 5/8/13 9:43 AM, Carlos M. martinez wrote:
Agreed, but, subject tagging is very useful for those who prefer to have
things hit your inbox first, before archiving. And there seems to be a
lot more agreement on the tagging issue than on the reply to.
Unless your mail setup is extremely restrict
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 13:59 -0400, Chip Marshall wrote:
> On 2013-05-08, Steven Carr sent:
> > Any chance someone can correct the settings on this mailing
> > list to reply to the list by default instead of the user
> > posting the message?
>
> I'd argue the settings are already correct. Having
Though there are plenty of students who are capable of getting their own
domains, and some temporary web presence.which popup for SGA
electionsand probably are only needed for a couple of weeks.
Plus after the class, what would stop them from using the domain for something
else
OTO
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 13:59 -0400, Chip Marshall wrote:
> On 2013-05-08, Steven Carr sent:
> > Any chance someone can correct the settings on this mailing
> > list to reply to the list by default instead of the user
> > posting the message?
>
> I'd argue the settings are already correct. Having
On 2013-05-08 13:50, Mike Hoskins (michoski) wrote:
The spirit of education is often saving money based on a former life as a
lab tech. While cheap, the proposal to "just go register a real one!"
seems good for $registrar, but potentially bad for the Internet (will we
end up with a bunch of garb
>> Any chance someone can correct the settings on this mailing list to
>> reply to the list by default instead of the user posting the message?
This is a religious argument. Please, leave it alone.
>And, If I might add, adding a tag to the subject like [bind-users] would
>be extremely nice.
It'
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Reed
Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 4:38 PM
To: Jeremy P
Cc: bind-users
Subject: Re: architecture question
>It would be a waste of money as their systems never leave the local
>network, except through a NAT connection.
>
>Godaddy is selling .coms for $0.
That's kind of how we do our DR...
I have things scripted so that every update to our zone, results two versions
of the zone file...the master server signs the first one and does its usual
notifies, then the master signs the second and its scp'd to secondaries in
another network.
In the event
>
> It would be a waste of money as their systems never leave the local
> network, except through a NAT connection.
Godaddy is selling .coms for $0.99 right now (US/Canada). In the spirit of
an educational setting, it might be a viable exercise for students to
understand how easy and affordable i
I believe your major point is the routing tables because they determine
how the response is trying to get out.
On 08/05/13 22:22, Steven Carr wrote:
> You will need to have some form of automation in place to update the
> DNS zone to change the IP address which should now be accessed when
> one o
You will need to have some form of automation in place to update the
DNS zone to change the IP address which should now be accessed when
one of the links goes down. You will also need to ensure you have a
low TTL value on the records you want to update on link change so that
the records are refresh
On 2013-05-08, Steven Carr sent:
Any chance someone can correct the settings on this mailing
list to reply to the list by default instead of the user
posting the message?
On 08.05.13 13:59, Chip Marshall wrote:
I'd argue the settings are already correct. Having the mailing
list software rewri
Years ago we decided to create a private TLD of .campus
What we did was make all our caching nameservers also be authoritative for this
private TLD. And, this worksexcept for delegated subdomains, which are
handled through using forwarding zones.
later when the needed to be able to get re
Hello all, I was wondering if someone could me out.
I am using Bind 9.2 on a Redhat Linux server. We have two ISPS on separate
networks Lets call them A and B. My Linux Server can listen on A's Network as
well as B's network.
I'm using fictitious IPs and names
A 111.111.111.1
Jeremy P wrote:
>
> I will switch to something more "out there" in the future. I take it that
> .lan is safe?
Don't use .lan either - it is very popular with malware and is likely to
get you blacklisted. Use a real domain.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
Forties, Cromarty: East,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/08/2013 01:28 PM, wbr...@e1b.org wrote:
>> From: Steven Carr
>
>> Any chance someone can correct the settings on this mailing list
>> to reply to the list by default instead of the user posting the
>> message?
>
> Why, Are the settings wrong?
On 2013.05.08 13.33, Jeremy P wrote:
I understand letter of the law, spirit of the law and playing it safe to
avoid headaches.
However, there are times where registering a real domain just isn't
practical. For example, I'm not going to ask all of the students in my
courses to go out and registe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I personally use localdomain. I'm not sure how safe it is, but I use
it at home so it probably doesn't matter.
On 05/08/2013 01:47 PM, Steven Carr wrote:
> You could ask your institution for a subdomain to be reserved from
> their domain?
>
> .lan is
On 5/8/13 8:15 PM, Tom Sommer wrote:
Another issue has arisen now though, the logfile is filled with lots of
named[5596]: zone example.com/IN: refresh: failure trying master
1.2.3.4#53 (source 0.0.0.0#0): operation canceled
and
named[5596]: zone example.com/IN: refresh: retry limit for mast
On 5/8/13 12:25 PM, Cathy Almond wrote:
On 08/05/13 08:26, Tom Sommer wrote:
Hi,
I have a problem with one of 3 slave servers, all set up the exact same
way, with the exact same bind version and configuration.
One slave has a problem transfering zones from the master.
The logfiles are floode
On 2013.05.08 13.20, Steven Carr wrote:
On 8 May 2013 18:09, wrote:
This just came up with a site I support. Thanks to this list and the
DNS-OARC list, I know better. Hopefully, I can redirect them to use
something below their real domain for Active Directory such as
ad.example.org.
FWIW: M
On 2013-05-08, Steven Carr sent:
> Any chance someone can correct the settings on this mailing
> list to reply to the list by default instead of the user
> posting the message?
I'd argue the settings are already correct. Having the mailing
list software rewrite the Reply-to line causes informatio
You could also make a sub domain of your main domain and use that for
all students, unless of course the purpose is to teach how to set this up.
I have used .home my self, now I would take something that
nobody would ever think of using in the "real" world, in old days I did
consider .xxx, that is
-Original Message-
From: Jeremy P
Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 1:33 PM
To: Steven Carr
Cc: bind-users
Subject: Re: architecture question
>I understand letter of the law, spirit of the law and playing it safe to
>avoid headaches.
>
>However, there are times where registering a real doma
You could ask your institution for a subdomain to be reserved from their domain?
.lan isn't AFAIK reserved for anything or in the process of being
considered by ICANN.
.test is reserved and will never be advertised on the internet (as are
.example, .invalid and .localhost)
On 8 May 2013 18:33, J
Agreed, but, subject tagging is very useful for those who prefer to have
things hit your inbox first, before archiving. And there seems to be a
lot more agreement on the tagging issue than on the reply to.
Out of dozens of MLs I'm subscribed to, this is the only one which does
not tag the subject,
I understand letter of the law, spirit of the law and playing it safe to
avoid headaches.
However, there are times where registering a real domain just isn't
practical. For example, I'm not going to ask all of the students in my
courses to go out and register a .com for the semester. It would be
> From: Steven Carr
> Any chance someone can correct the settings on this mailing list to
> reply to the list by default instead of the user posting the message?
Why, Are the settings wrong?
I have used and later run lists for years, and supported Listserv(tm)
servers for others for most of th
On 8 May 2013 18:09, wrote:
> This just came up with a site I support. Thanks to this list and the
> DNS-OARC list, I know better. Hopefully, I can redirect them to use
> something below their real domain for Active Directory such as
> ad.example.org.
FWIW: MS now advises not to use .local for
> From: b...@bitrate.net
> on a side note, i would strongly discourage you from using .local in
> dns. .local is a "pseudo" tld, reserved for use with mdns.
This just came up with a site I support. Thanks to this list and the
DNS-OARC list, I know better. Hopefully, I can redirect them to use
And, If I might add, adding a tag to the subject like [bind-users] would
be extremely nice.
regards
~Carlos
On 5/8/13 12:02 PM, Steven Carr wrote:
> Any chance someone can correct the settings on this mailing list to
> reply to the list by default instead of the user posting the message?
>
> Th
Understood. This is an isolated lab full of openBSD boxes, so I'm not too
worried about it. The lab will be torn down in a month or two.
I will switch to something more "out there" in the future. I take it that
.lan is safe?
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:03 AM, wrote:
>
> On May 8, 2013, at 10.
On May 8, 2013, at 10.56, Jeremy P wrote:
> I am building a lab environment where there are several separate domains, all
> of them ending in .local
on a side note, i would strongly discourage you from using .local in dns.
.local is a "pseudo" tld, reserved for use with mdns.
-ben
_
Any chance someone can correct the settings on this mailing list to
reply to the list by default instead of the user posting the message?
Thanks
Steve
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bin
Don't forget that Bonjour actually uses .local and will be very sour if
it is sued for other purposes, I have tried.
On 08/05/13 16:56, Jeremy P wrote:
> I am building a lab environment where there are several separate
> domains, all of them ending in .local
>
> I've setup a server for the .loc
Enable recursion on your .local TLD server and point the domain1.local
server to that server for DNS. Recursion will handle any internet
queries and as .local is authoritative it will provide responses when
queried.
On 8 May 2013 15:56, Jeremy P wrote:
> I am building a lab environment where ther
You probably want to use host myhost, that does use the resolv.conf as
the system normally would. And it works better than nslookup.
On 08/05/13 16:56, Evan Hunt wrote:
>> dig myhost
> By default dig only uses fully qualified domain names. "dig +search"
> does what you want.
>
>> It would search f
> dig myhost
By default dig only uses fully qualified domain names. "dig +search"
does what you want.
> It would search for that host in path1 or path2 listed above.? It does
> not, a +trace shows the resolver querying the root servers for myhost.?
> So it appears the search command does not work
I am building a lab environment where there are several separate domains,
all of them ending in .local
I've setup a server for the .local TLD, but I'm undecided (or perhaps
ignorant) as to the best way to have the individual domains (domain1.local,
domain2.local, etc) refer to the local zone on my
On May 8 2013, John Williams wrote:
my resolv.conf looks like
nameserver 10.10.10.10
nameserver 10.10.10.20
search path1.mydomain.com path2.mydomain.com
I would expect if I type the following:
dig myhost
It would search for that host in path1 or path2 listed above. It does not,
a +trac
On 05/08/2013 10:32 AM, John Williams wrote:
> my resolv.conf looks like
>
> nameserver 10.10.10.10
> nameserver 10.10.10.20
> search path1.mydomain.com path2.mydomain.com
>
> I would expect if I type the following:
>
> dig myhost
You want dig +search myhost
By default it ignores the sear
my resolv.conf looks like
nameserver 10.10.10.10
nameserver 10.10.10.20
search path1.mydomain.com path2.mydomain.com
I would expect if I type the following:
dig myhost
It would search for that host in path1 or path2 listed above. It does not, a
+trace shows the resolver querying the root
On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 9:06:53 PM UTC-4, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 05/07/2013 01:50 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> > On 07.05.13 11:06, Michael Varre wrote:
>
> >> So interestingly they did give me their setup and this is their
>
> >> response, and my warm and fuzzy feeling continues to go
On 08/05/13 08:26, Tom Sommer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a problem with one of 3 slave servers, all set up the exact same
> way, with the exact same bind version and configuration.
>
> One slave has a problem transfering zones from the master.
>
> The logfiles are flooded with "received notify for
Hi,
I have a problem with one of 3 slave servers, all set up the exact same
way, with the exact same bind version and configuration.
One slave has a problem transfering zones from the master.
The logfiles are flooded with "received notify for zone" .. "refresh in
progress, refresh check queu
48 matches
Mail list logo
