You're right: I misinterpreted no name-server as no such host (aka
NXDOMAIN), but actually your explanation makes more sense.
- Kevin
On 6/9/2014 6:07 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
In article
If you want to ensure well working failover you must, at some point,
test it. Even better, you may want to regularly test it (check out
Netflix's Chaos Monkey).
One way to run a simulation would be to use a firewall rule or static
route to block access between your test client/recursive
Hello,
I've got 6 name-servers, 2 in each of 3 global regions. Each name-server
has a net connection. Each name-server is authoritative. the domains it
server have all six NS records.
My question has to do with redundancy. If one of my regions goes down, I
would have expected that a query against
Thanks, Kevin, for your quick reply. In the last few minutes, I've come to
realize that my problem is likely that the domain is only registered with
two name servers - the one which were offline. Even though the zone has 6
NS records, the .com servers probably only know of the ones in the
That scenario still shouldn't have led to an NXDOMAIN. If none of the
delegated nameservers are responding, you'd get a timeout or SERVFAIL.
So I think there's still some investigation to be done. But using dig
instead of nslookup at least makes things clearer :-)
Of course, caching may
Again - thanks for the quick response - that'll teach me to post without
all the facts. I simply don't remember what the specific error was, darn
it. It might have been NXDOMAIN or SERVFAIL - I didn't write it down.
The test I was running was on a barely, if ever used, domain, so I was
pretty
In article mailman.401.1402350461.26362.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Kevin Darcy k...@chrysler.com wrote:
That scenario still shouldn't have led to an NXDOMAIN. If none of the
delegated nameservers are responding, you'd get a timeout or SERVFAIL.
So I think there's still some investigation to
7 matches
Mail list logo
