On 2014-01-12 10:04, Chris Thompson wrote:
On Jan 11 2014, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
[...snip...]
(2) There is no requirement that a domain name refer to the Web site
for that domain. I personally don't like that (for no special
reason), and neither apparently does the owner of this domain, who
On Jan 14 2014, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
On 2014-01-12 10:04, Chris Thompson wrote:
[...]
That would be more plausible if www.p3net.net actually resolved to
something, rather than giving NXDOMAIN ...
How interesting. From here I see (and saw before I posted):
;; ANSWER SECTION:
Joseph S D Yao j...@tux.org wrote:
On 2014-01-12 10:04, Chris Thompson wrote:
That would be more plausible if www.p3net.net actually resolved to
something, rather than giving NXDOMAIN ...
How interesting. From here I see (and saw before I posted):
;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.p3net.net.
From: Tony Finch d...@dotat.at
;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.p3net.net. 0 IN A 199.101.28.20
That IP address indicates that your ISP is lying to you. It belongs to
Skye By Nominum which is a cloud DNS service. I guess this is Skye
Search
since that sounds like a rent-seeking scheme
On 13 Jan 2014, at 20:36 , Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 8919443e-8f62-48cd-8da4-9c9632fc5...@kreme.com, LuKreme writes:
OK, I am getting this error dumping master file: tmp-xxx: open:
permission denied, occasionally, on both my slave DNS servers and I
can't seem to fix it.
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014, LuKreme wrote:
On 13 Jan 2014, at 20:36 , Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 8919443e-8f62-48cd-8da4-9c9632fc5...@kreme.com, LuKreme writes:
OK, I am getting this error dumping master file: tmp-xxx: open:
permission denied, occasionally, on both my slave DNS
On 14 Jan 2014, at 09:02 , David Forrest d...@maplepark.com wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014, LuKreme wrote:
On 13 Jan 2014, at 20:36 , Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 8919443e-8f62-48cd-8da4-9c9632fc5...@kreme.com, LuKreme writes:
OK, I am getting this error dumping master
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014, LuKreme wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 09:02 , David Forrest d...@maplepark.com wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014, LuKreme wrote:
On 13 Jan 2014, at 20:36 , Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 8919443e-8f62-48cd-8da4-9c9632fc5...@kreme.com, LuKreme writes:
OK, I am
Hi Folks,
I am not sure if this is an appropriate forum to answer since more or less
it is pertaining to Go Daddy support but since its a huge community our
there and I am sure many of them are already using Go Daddy wondering if
su-domain delegation is possible in Go Daddy?
I mean I have
Is there anything I need to know regarding changes in default operation when
upgrading from 9.8.3 to 9.9.4? I'm specifically looking for changes that
must be addressed in named.conf options in order to keep an upgrade as
transparent as possible.
Thanks,
Mike
IIRC, The main change I ran into when I upgraded to 9.9.2-P1 (from
9.7.6-P4) was the change in default for empty-zones. All are enabled by
default, including RFC1918 ranges whether you have any defined or not.
On 01/14/14 12:16, Mike Bernhardt wrote:
Is there anything I need to know regarding
Good call out. I'd always enabled empty-zones so didn't get bit by that,
but do think the move to 9.9 is when masterfile-format bit some. Not a
big deal if you're aware of it.Other than that the upgrade as quick
and painless. I would suggest testing the upgrade on a VM or somewhere
On 01/14/2014 08:14 AM, LuKreme wrote:
so I should change
zone kreme.com { type slave; masters { 75.148.37.67; }; file
slave/kreme.com; };
to
zone kreme.com { type slave; masters { 75.148.37.67; }; file
“/var/named/etc/namedb/slave/kreme.com; };
and that will eliminate the errors?
No.
If the domain owner *really* feels that they have to publish *some*
address record for a particular name, but there is no available service
at that name, then the null or unspecified address (IPv4 = 0.0.0.0,
IPv6 = ::0) is the appropriate value to put there.
Loopback is anti-social; an
On 2014-01-14 12:39, Blason R wrote:
Hi Folks,
I am not sure if this is an appropriate forum to answer since more or
less it is pertaining to Go Daddy support but since its a huge
community our there and I am sure many of them are already using Go
Daddy wondering if su-domain delegation is
On 2014-01-14 09:56, Chris Thompson as IP Register wrote:
...
199.101.28.20 seems to be search.dnsassist.verizon.net. Are you
sure that the nameservers you are using aren't doing friendly
rewriting of NXDOMAIN responses for you?
...
Ack. Good thing you can't see how embarrassed I'm blushing.
16 matches
Mail list logo
