nsupdate will use the MNAME regardless of whether it is matched by a
NS record. ISC dhcpd, as you indicated, does not unless overridden
manually via a zone statement.
-Tim
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Chris Buxton cli...@buxtonfamily.us wrote:
On Jan 16, 2013, at 1:01 PM, Chuck Swiger
In article mailman.1089.1358406835.11945.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Dave Warren li...@hireahit.com wrote:
Because it is actually the master, and from what I can tell, the slaves
will check against the MNAME to confirm whether they're up to date or not.
No, slaves check against the IPs listed
Is there anything technically wrong with having a SOA MNAME field that
isn't listed as a NS record?
The server listed as MNAME will host the zone and is authoritative for
the zone, but out of latency concerns it isn't ideal to have other
resolvers querying this server.
Various online DNS
On Jan 16, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
Is there anything technically wrong with having a SOA MNAME field that isn't
listed as a NS record?
Sure. The SOA MNAME is expected to be the primary master nameserver for the
zone; it's where things like dhcpd and such send dynamic updates
3:42 PM, Dave Warren li...@hireahit.com wrote:
Is there anything technically wrong with having a SOA MNAME field that
isn't listed as a NS record?
The server listed as MNAME will host the zone and is authoritative for the
zone, but out of latency concerns it isn't ideal to have other resolvers
In article mailman.1077.1358370123.11945.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Chuck Swiger cswi...@mac.com wrote:
On Jan 16, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
Is there anything technically wrong with having a SOA MNAME field that
isn't listed as a NS record?
Sure. The SOA MNAME is expected to
On Jan 16, 2013, at 1:42 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
In article mailman.1077.1358370123.11945.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Chuck Swiger cswi...@mac.com wrote:
On Jan 16, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
Is there anything technically wrong with having a SOA MNAME field that
isn't listed as
From: Dave Warren li...@hireahit.com
Various online DNS diagnostic tools throw warnings,
Speaking of so called DNS diagnostic tools, one claims that my domains
have DNS servers with private network addresses. My only guess is
that they don't know the difference between IPv6 addresses and
RFC
-Original Message-
From: Vernon Schryver v...@rhyolite.com
Date: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 5:05 PM
To: bind-users@lists.isc.org bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: MNAME not a listed NS record
From: Dave Warren li...@hireahit.com
Various online DNS diagnostic tools throw warnings
In article mailman.1080.1358373225.11945.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Chuck Swiger cswi...@mac.com wrote:
On Jan 16, 2013, at 1:42 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
In article mailman.1077.1358370123.11945.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Chuck Swiger cswi...@mac.com wrote:
On Jan 16, 2013, at 12:40 PM,
On Jan 16, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
[ ... ]
On Jan 16, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
Is there anything technically wrong with having a SOA MNAME field that
isn't listed as a NS record?
Sure. The SOA MNAME is expected to be the primary master nameserver for
the
In article mailman.1085.1358384707.11945.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Chuck Swiger cswi...@mac.com wrote:
On Jan 16, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
[ ... ]
On Jan 16, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
Is there anything technically wrong with having a SOA MNAME field that
isn't
Is there anything technically wrong with having a SOA MNAME field
that isn't listed as a NS record?
Not at all; that works fine.
The server listed as MNAME will host the zone and is authoritative
for the zone, but out of latency concerns it isn't ideal to have
other resolvers querying this
On 1/16/2013 22:17, Jan-Piet Mens wrote:
Is there anything technically wrong with having a SOA MNAME field
that isn't listed as a NS record?
Not at all; that works fine.
Thanks. That's what I thought, but I wanted to confirm that this
particular warning didn't have any backing in reality.
On 1/16/2013 13:53, Chuck Swiger wrote:
True, but I don't see much utility from a nameserver which can be dynamically
updated but not queried.
It *can* be queried, it's just not ideal as the machine has a fair
amount of load and has fairly high latency. Since I have secondaries in
colocation
15 matches
Mail list logo
