Hi,
in case of classless IN-ADDR.ARPA
delegations(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2317.txt) I have usually seen
at least one NS record pointing to name server other than the
end-customer ones. Example from rfc2317.txt where there are two NS
records and the second one is not the end-customer name
...@mail.gmail.com, Martin T
writes:
Hi,
in case of classless IN-ADDR.ARPA
delegations(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2317.txt) I have usually seen
at least one NS record pointing to name server other than the
end-customer ones. Example from rfc2317.txt where there are two NS
records and the second
On 04/02/2013 12:47 AM, Martin T wrote:
Is NS record pointing to some other name server needed in case of
classless IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations? What happens if one does not
specify this?
It's very common for the parent name server(s) to slave the 2317 zone so
that it can answer directly. It's
, doesn't mean that
it's good advice for the average user.
Doug
Putting in delegations where they are not needed introduces additional
work and more places that can go wrong.
And also (he said very quietly indeed after delurking) increases the
granularity of management. Being able to reload
YPYMAYTYP
Zero results from my favorite search engine -- congratulations. ;-)
-JP
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
In article mailman.571.1351768172.11945.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Jan-Piet Mens jpmens@gmail.com wrote:
YPYMAYTYP
Zero results from my favorite search engine -- congratulations. ;-)
Thank you. Try YPYMAYTYC but I was thinking pick.
Sam
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable
On Oct 31, 2012, at 4:02 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 10/31/2012 03:56 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
You are equating a practice that was techically wrong, and known
to be wrong from the get go, with one that has never been techically
wrong.
Yes, I'm making exactly the same judgment that typical
I have a zone file for example.org that has entries for a subdomain
l2.example.org like this:
vpn.l2 IN A10.1.2.3
Now they want to add a subdomain below l2, ie. ad.l2.eboces.org with hosts
such as dc.ad.l2.eboces.org
In the zone file for example.org, I can add NS and glue
is a bit confusing here. subdomain is imprecise.
Specify what *zones* you want, and where you want the delegations, and
it should be easy to see what will work and not.
example.org SOA
www.example.org A - hostname, in example.org zone
vpn.l2.example.org A - hostname, still in example.org
Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote:
No. Zone cuts can be at any label inside a zone.
Provided inside does not include the zone apex :-)
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch d...@dotat.at http://dotat.at/
Forties, Cromarty: East, veering southeast, 4 or 5, occasionally 6 at first.
Rough,
Phil wrote on 10/31/2012 02:15:16 PM:
You terminology is a bit confusing here. subdomain is imprecise.
Sorry, I meant it as a piece of the FQDN.
Specify what *zones* you want, and where you want the delegations, and
it should be easy to see what will work and not.
Yes, if I've
On 10/31/2012 10:12 AM, wbr...@e1b.org wrote:
I have a zone file for example.org that has entries for a subdomain
l2.example.org like this:
vpn.l2 IN A10.1.2.3
Now they want to add a subdomain below l2, ie. ad.l2.eboces.org with hosts
such as dc.ad.l2.eboces.org
As
On 10/31/2012 06:51 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
It may or may not be strictly necessary to do this depending on
everything else you have in the zone, but it's safer in the long term to
do it this way.
Are you suggesting it's best of the OP creates l2.example.com as a
sub-zone?
Why it this
On 10/31/2012 5:15 PM, Phil Mayers wrote:
On 10/31/2012 06:51 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
It may or may not be strictly necessary to do this depending on
everything else you have in the zone, but it's safer in the long term to
do it this way.
Are you suggesting it's best of the OP creates
.example.com as a
sub-zone?
Why it this necessary / safer?
It certainly isn't necessary. We have plenty of zone cuts more than one
label deep into the parent zone. And of course such delegations are
*extremely* common in the reverse lookup trees, with the IPv6 one
probably providing records for the number
On Oct 31 2012, Kevin Darcy wrote:
[...snip...]
I know of at least 2 commerically-available DNS maintenance systems
that, by default, do not allow what they call dotted hostnames, by
which they mean a name which is at least 2 labels below a zone cut, e.g.
foo.bar in the example.com zone. Their
On 10/31/2012 03:22 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:
On Oct 31 2012, Kevin Darcy wrote:
[...snip...]
I know of at least 2 commerically-available DNS maintenance systems
that, by default, do not allow what they call dotted hostnames, by
which they mean a name which is at least 2 labels below a zone
In message 5091a8bc.70...@dougbarton.us, Doug Barton writes:
On 10/31/2012 03:22 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:
On Oct 31 2012, Kevin Darcy wrote:
[...snip...]
I know of at least 2 commerically-available DNS maintenance systems
that, by default, do not allow what they call dotted
judgment that typical users make. It
works, so it must be Ok.
The fact that we (experts) can get away with something, whether it's
technically right/wrong/indifferent not withstanding, doesn't mean that
it's good advice for the average user.
Doug
Putting in delegations where they are not needed
DNS server.
My main goal is to prevent the internal MS DNS server from trying to
communicate with DNS servers outside the internal network zone
following delegations. Such communication will be dropped in
firewalls. Instead I want the internal MS DNS server to follow the
generic DNS forwarding
Cincinnati Country Day School
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 4:16 AM
To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: minimal-responses yes; to prevent downstream MS DNS server following
DNS delegations
My main goal is to prevent the internal MS DNS server from trying
Taylor, Gord wrote:
I've noticed that if I have default forwarders setup in the options
section of my named.conf, then BIND (9.4.1-P1) will forward to these
servers rather than following the delegations for zones where it's
authoritative (verified via sniffer trace). Is this true of all BIND
forwarders setup in the options
section of my named.conf, then BIND (9.4.1-P1) will forward to these
servers rather than following the delegations for zones where it's
authoritative (verified via sniffer trace). Is this true of all BIND
versions?
Yes (at least anything reasonably recent
I've noticed that if I have default forwarders setup in the options
section of my named.conf, then BIND (9.4.1-P1) will forward to these
servers rather than following the delegations for zones where it's
authoritative (verified via sniffer trace). Is this true of all BIND
versions?
In my case
On 21-Jan-2009, at 03:23 , Scott Haneda wrote:
On Jan 20, 2009, at 6:42 PM, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
Registries that implement host records (so, at least the gTLDs)
could accept the word of the registrant of the zone that contains a
name server (or the word of their registrar on their
the domain reg'd and my NS's listed.
The system should recognise the rights of nameserver operators.
There should be some process by which unwanted delegations can be removed.
Obviously doing this on the basis of an email is not a good idea, but
perhaps
the nameserver operator can publish their desire
26 matches
Mail list logo
