Re: Multi-master (HA)

2014-05-08 Thread John Wingenbach
I wouldn't say we migrated in that direction due to anything other then lack of good options. What BIND is missing is the concept of an update master. Augment BIND with the following: * Each master is aware of the other masters. * One master is defined as an update master (rndc control?)

Re: Answer for a specific host, but recurse for all others within a zone

2014-05-08 Thread John Wingenbach
What you are looking for is basically dnsmasq. That allows you to override specific resolutions, while letting the rest go through the normal process. BIND does not allow you to have split authority for a single zone. if you say is handled locally, then anything under

Re: Multi-master (HA)

2014-05-07 Thread John Wingenbach
I run a multi-master environment. We have 3 data centers which are considered to be able to run even though the rest are down. Initially, we ran our masters with the same exact configurations on each. One of the data centers was administratively defined as being the 'update master'. From

Re: Zone Transfer issue on BIND9

2012-08-25 Thread John Wingenbach
The problem pointed out in your 'match-clients' is the first glaring problem. What you need to understand is that from the point of BIND, your slave server is treated the same (from the view ) as any client for the master and vice versa. So, the communication between master and slave needs to be

Re: 2 dns records for same server

2012-08-19 Thread John Wingenbach
The OP stated he has 3 separate DNS servers. Two serving public and one serving private. Under those circumstances, there is no specific need or requirement for views. Views are only needed if the same DNS server is answering to clients that you want to give out different answers. If as the OP

Re: 2 dns records for same server

2012-08-18 Thread John Wingenbach
Assuming your architecture is: 2 DNS servers which answers to external queries (public facing) 1 DNS server which only answers to internal queries (internal facing) All internal clients configured to query the internal facing DNS server for resolution. Then, simply place your domain in both the

Re: Secondary Master

2012-05-11 Thread John Wingenbach
The concept of a secondary master is sound. It basically provides for a healthy means of handling the situation where your primary master is unusable. To enable and support a primary/backup dns master, the backup master is initially setup as noted as a slave server. Any other slave


2012-05-07 Thread John Wingenbach
If that's an exact copy of your record, I'm going to also assume that the ORIGIN at the time of the record is As such, the resulting record becomes: 86400 IN CNAME Note that trailing '.'s are required to prevent the automatic addition of

Re: Why does a non-delegated sub-domain work?

2012-05-07 Thread John Wingenbach
s6 is a subdomain of the parent domain. Unless otherwise specified, subdomains are mastered (NS'd) by the parent (or extended parent domain) containing NS records. As such, because you didn't put any NS records in the zone file for s6, it follows the NS records of the parent which happen to

Slave zone configuration -- purpose of forward/forwarders?

2012-04-20 Thread John Wingenbach
I've noticed the support in ARM for specifying both the forward and forwarders configuration in a zone stanza for slave zones. What is the purpose and value of specifying such? It seems contradictory and confusing. -- John ___ Please visit

Re: nslookup/dig question

2012-01-25 Thread John Wingenbach
You copied over the zone files. However, the bind 9 server is responding with NXDOMAIN. It appears to me that the server does not believe it is authoritative for the zone. Verify that the server indeed believes it is (look at the logs on startup). Take a look at your named configuration to

Re: Loading MX record with illegal preference (Lame subject replaced: clarification

2010-10-22 Thread John Wingenbach Scroll down to the data type MX and it says: Identifies a mail exchange for the domain with a 16-bit preference value (lower is better) followed by the host name of the mail exchange. Described in RFC 974,

Multiple zones pointing to same zone file

2010-10-19 Thread John Wingenbach
I know that per Mark Andrews that named does not support having multiple zones pointing to the same zone file. I can understand the issue if named does not support it for a slave server. What about for a master server? Are there any issues with named supporting that? I would assume that

Re: multiple slave zones pointing to same file?

2010-10-02 Thread John Wingenbach
Simply set the file option to the same name on the slave server. On 10/2/2010 2:59 PM, Doug Barton wrote: On 10/2/2010 11:16 AM, online-reg wrote: Hi All: I’m building a new Bind 9.7.1-P2 slave server and am taking an opportunity to review my conf files. I have a number of zones on the

Re: multiple slave zones pointing to same file?

2010-10-02 Thread John Wingenbach
Doesn't support it? Since when does named not allow you to use the same file name for more then one zone? I've been doing that for several years. -- John Wingenbach On 10/2/2010 6:49 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: In message58f2f2eb90f24743a050575c87c7c...@nyoffice.enigmedia.local, online -reg

Re: Bind not starting

2010-10-01 Thread John Wingenbach
NS records must point to an A record. ns1 and ns2 do not have A records defined for them according to the zone file. -- John On 10/1/2010 12:14 AM, rams wrote: Hi, I have configured records as follows in bind. When we start the bind 9.7, bind is not starting. But bind is