-Original Message-
> From: bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org
> [mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Dil Lee
> Sent: Wednesday, 18 November 2015 3:42 PM
> To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> Subject: does bind depends on system DNS settings for lookup?
> Hi,
> This is probably
: Not able to query from F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET over IPv6 -- FROM INDIA
I am trying to telnet (port 53)/ping/dig on 2001:500:2F::F address.
Src address is 2405:8a00::/32.
Trace is blocked at firewall end. If needed i wl try to get the same.
Regards,
Gaurav Kansal
STUART BROWNE
Senior Unix Administrator
On 14.04.15 07:36, SH Development wrote:
Like what? I’ve never had any issues.
Like you uselessly flush all cached data, RTTs ... and you get unwanted log
line in the output.
If you never had any issues with reconfig, use rndc reconfig.
On Apr 13, 2015, at 12:27 PM, Emil Natan
Bob,
Some date and record number details from one of my systems, with
'max-journal-size: 100m'. Yes, I've changed the zone names.. ;)
NOTE: Add/Del numbers show total / non-dnssec-or-soa related update numbers.
'zone1' is a monitoring test zone that has sub-zone delegation changes a few
Unfortunately we can't sign the fictional TLD, since we are neither master
nor slave of the zone.
We are just forwarding our queries to a foreign authorative Server.
Grüße,
Stefan
If the zone isn't signed, it shouldn't be trying to validate it as there's
nothing to validate. Unless this
-Original Message-
From: bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org [mailto:bind-users-
boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Alan Clegg
Sent: Wednesday, 8 October 2014 8:35 AM
To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: Inline-signing feature request: Directly set the signed
zone's serial number
-Original Message-
From: bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org [mailto:bind-users-
boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Mark Andrews
Sent: Friday, 12 September 2014 8:58 AM
To: John Miller
Cc: Bind Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: Promoting slave to master DNS server with dynamic updates
.. and somehow didn't answer your question, sorry. first thing in the morning.
Just a 'rndc reconfig' should be sufficient to get the configuration change to
act.
Stuart
-Original Message-
From: Stuart Browne
Sent: Thursday, 12 June 2014 9:17 AM
To: Bind Users Mailing List
Subject
This one is a bit of a fun one to understand.
Whilst setting this seems to suggest This will be the biggest size the journal
will ever get to, it isn't.
This suggests to bind to flush the journal when it reaches this size. If the
journal is busy however, the flush will be delayed until such a
Wouldn't it be something along the lines about recursive using cache-in-memory
where the authoritative is using lookups of zone-in-memory?
The algorithms are probably different. I've not looked at the code though.
Stuart
-Original Message-
From:
-Original Message-
From: bind-users-bounces+stuart.browne=ausregistry.com...@lists.isc.org
[mailto:bind-users-bounces+stuart.browne=ausregistry.com...@lists.isc.org]
On Behalf Of brett smith
Sent: Sunday, 20 October 2013 12:35 PM
To: sth...@nethelp.no
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
-Original Message-
From: bind-users-bounces+stuart.browne=ausregistry.com...@lists.isc.org
[mailto:bind-users-bounces+stuart.browne=ausregistry.com...@lists.isc.org]
On Behalf Of Elmar K. Bins
Sent: Thursday, 6 June 2013 5:46 AM
To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: This list's
Hi,
I've been doing some throughput testing of BIND for both signed and non-signed
zones of various sizes and have noticed some odd behaviour.
Using the 'dnsperf' tool to perform the testing, I see that smaller (signed)
zones perform considerably worse than larger zones when queried with +DO.
13 matches
Mail list logo
