On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 11:30:03AM +0200, Kalman Feher wrote:
> >>
> >> probably it was not thought because it's wrong.
> >
> > This point is getting religious now, IMHO.
> Bear in mind that your rationale is based on getting an inaccessible DNS
> server to return information that a client has co
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 05:39:16PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> On 01.10.10 12:39, Joerg Dorchain wrote:
> > Well, I could agree agree that "wrong" means not thought of by
> > RfC-Designers and bind implementators (yet).
>
> probably it was not
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 11:25:31AM +0200, Kalman Feher wrote:
> > Yes. To explain my setup further, there is a view based on
> > src-IPs for some clients, where recursion is turned on.
> > The rest of the world gets non-recursive answers, e.g. with
> > authoritative data, or refused.
> >
> > In ca
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 07:13:11PM -0400, Kevin Darcy wrote:
> Per-zone recursion control doesn't exist in BIND, because frankly it
> doesn't make sense.
I used to think that, too, until I came to my specific problem.
>
> Either a zone type is meaningless *without* recursion (type forward,
> type
Hello,
I am puzzled with a bind config for a kind of dns-reverse-proxy situation.
I have a server with only one public IP addresse, bind running on
port 53 of it.
This bind serves examples.net. A subdomain dynsub.example.net
should be served on some other software answering DNS request
with dyna
5 matches
Mail list logo
