On 13/08/10 08:49, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 12.08.10 17:07, Phil Mayers wrote:
Thanks, but perhaps I should be more specific about what I'm asking:
Is it still the case that *Bind* will not follow a delegation where an
NS record points at a CNAME?
In any event, as has been pointed out
On 8/13/2010 6:08 AM, Phil Mayers wrote:
Still puzzled that bind didn't seem to log anything. I will have a trawl
through the source I think; I'm sure it must be my logging config.
I don't know if I'm on the right path, but were you logging lame
delegations?
--
Dave
On 13/08/10 14:14, Dave Sparro wrote:
On 8/13/2010 6:08 AM, Phil Mayers wrote:
Still puzzled that bind didn't seem to log anything. I will have a trawl
through the source I think; I'm sure it must be my logging config.
I don't know if I'm on the right path, but were you logging lame
All,
We've had a report this morning that a user can't resolve:
71.225.219.134.in-addr.arpa PTR
...I think this is because the parent zone NS records point to CNAMEs. I
can see references to (much) older versions of bind not following such
delegations, but I'm not getting anything logged at
On 12.08.10 12:02, Phil Mayers wrote:
We've had a report this morning that a user can't resolve:
71.225.219.134.in-addr.arpa PTR
...I think this is because the parent zone NS records point to CNAMEs. I
can see references to (much) older versions of bind not following such
delegations,
On 12/08/10 16:34, Yohann Lepage wrote:
2010/8/12 Phil Mayersp.may...@imperial.ac.uk:
Is this still the case (that NS-CNAME is invalid)?
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2181.txt
10.3. MX and NS records
The domain name used as the value of a NS resource record, or part of
the value
6 matches
Mail list logo
