I fully agree.
Now, please understand the following question has been asked of me and I fully
realize the implications and that it is just not a good idea. I will gladly
forward the suggestions to my peers (and bosses).
Is there any way to accept the first response (CNAME with IP) and not
Thank you all for the suggestions.
Prefetch sounds like a good solution and still provides the designed behavior
for integrity. I see Bind 9.10 introduces “prefetch” and I will look into it.
Until we change or upgrade, a simple solution may be our own prefetch (periodic
lookup) of popular
I'm sure there's a good, simple reason for this, I just can't seem to find the
answer searching on the Internet.
Why does named perform a lookup for the A record when its IP is returned with
the CNAME in the first answer?
Using dig, I find play.google.com is a CNAME for play.l.google.com.
CNAMES which is why you
> don’t want to have a CNAME to another CNAME because that results in 3
> lookups. For most applications the single CNAME isn’t an issue but on
> occasion it is so you go the A record route instead.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: bind-use
example -> www.bar.example
>
> Server A return a complete answer but the www.bar.example data is
> from the wrong zone instance. This happens accidentally in real
> life.
>
> Mark
>
> In message
> <1401468033.15948.1445459552099.javama
Good morning/day/evening.
What exactly does beneath mean in the following line from the 9.9.4
bug fixes?
Fix forwarding for forward only zones beneath automatic empty zones.
[RT #34583]
Thanks in advance,
Steve.
___
Please visit
On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 23:09 -0800, sasa sasa wrote:
Hi,
I got a server with 16GB memory, want to install 2 BIND on CentOS, one cache
only and another authoritative.
Is it better to install 2 OS virtually and run BIND in them or run 2
instances of BIND on the same OS? I mean what is the best
Is your firewall Cisco based?
There is a known default setting in Cisco with respect to packet size
for DNS. Our network guys run into this anytime they do an upgrade,
etc. and have to go in and update the setting.
Steve.
On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 15:45 -0500, Brad Bendily wrote:
When trying
It is my experience the client hits the views in order (top, down) until
an ACL allows it. Once an ACL allows it in a view, it goes no further.
Steve.
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 10:32 -0300, sky shade wrote:
Someone know how bind test client matches? I know that its respect the
declaration
I've been using multiple views and servers successfully for a while now.
I hope the following helps...
To transfer zones to and from specific views, you can use keys,
match-clients and server declarations to control access and
transfers.
Setup keys for each view.
Disallow clients (and servers)
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 11:46 -0500, John Wobus wrote:
Hi,
Can a zone file a slave in one view and the same zone file
be served by another view?
It is a bad idea, although I know (from experience) it will work for
static zones. One problem is you need to remember to reload the zone in
both
I need really something very simple:
I have 2 domain name servers, I need them to be multi-master
Please explain -- *why* do you need multimaster?
I need to be able to update the nameserver even if one of the two
masters is down, I need this
for High Avaliability purposes for services
I would like to resolve dns.ourdomain.com to a list of our DNS server
names and possibly their IPs.
As we use many DNS servers (and or views) for our different development
environments, it would be very helpful for the developers to easily find
the name and IP of the proper name server to use.
13 matches
Mail list logo
