Re: RFC 6303 vs. BIND: NS ... has no address records (A or AAAA)

2012-01-12 Thread Tony Finch
Sten Carlsen st...@s-carlsen.dk wrote: Good news is that you should simplify your bogon list, lots of those addresses are now actually in use; e.g. I have regular visits on my pages by 2.x.x.x as they are now mostly handed out (local ISP here) and in legitimate use. My bogon list only

Re: RFC 6303 vs. BIND: NS ... has no address records (A or AAAA)

2012-01-11 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 10.01.12 18:13, Tony Finch wrote: In the reverse direction I have 1.0.0.172.in-addr.arpa and 1.0.0.ip6.arpa zones with the predictable contents: @ SOA localhost. root.localhost. 1 1h 1000 1w 1h NS localhost. PTRlocalhost. I prefer defining 127.in-addr.arpa and inside:

Re: RFC 6303 vs. BIND: NS ... has no address records (A or AAAA)

2012-01-11 Thread Chris Thompson
On Jan 10 2012, Tony Finch wrote: Irwin Tillman ir...@princeton.edu wrote: What's the recommended approach? My empty zone is: @ SOA localhost. root.localhost. 1 1h 1000 1w 1h NS localhost. I also have a localhost. zone (RFC 2606) which is: @ SOA localhost. root.localhost. 1 1h

Re: RFC 6303 vs. BIND: NS ... has no address records (A or AAAA)

2012-01-11 Thread Tony Finch
Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk wrote: I prefer defining 127.in-addr.arpa and inside: 1.0.0 PTR localhost. I used to do that, but I need fewer zone files if I use the same reverse zone for v6 and v4 :-) I have fairly extensive setup for bogons, and I have set up empty zones to cover

Re: RFC 6303 vs. BIND: NS ... has no address records (A or AAAA)

2012-01-11 Thread Sten Carlsen
Hi Good news is that you should simplify your bogon list, lots of those addresses are now actually in use; e.g. I have regular visits on my pages by 2.x.x.x as they are now mostly handed out (local ISP here) and in legitimate use. On 11/01/12 16:05, Tony Finch wrote: Matus UHLAR - fantomas

Re: RFC 6303 vs. BIND: NS ... has no address records (A or AAAA)

2012-01-11 Thread Doug Barton
Apples and oranges. The things listed below are actual bogons. Compare http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/etc/namedb/named.conf?rev=1.36 Doug On 1/11/2012 9:15 AM, Sten Carlsen wrote: Hi Good news is that you should simplify your bogon list, lots of those addresses are now actually

Re: RFC 6303 vs. BIND: NS ... has no address records (A or AAAA)

2012-01-11 Thread michoski
On 1/11/12 10:57 AM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: Apples and oranges. The things listed below are actual bogons. Compare http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/etc/namedb/named.conf?rev=1.36 When tracking bogons, it's certainly good to stay up to date. Another related data point:

Re: RFC 6303 vs. BIND: NS ... has no address records (A or AAAA)

2012-01-10 Thread Tony Finch
Irwin Tillman ir...@princeton.edu wrote: What's the recommended approach? My empty zone is: @ SOA localhost. root.localhost. 1 1h 1000 1w 1h NSlocalhost. I also have a localhost. zone (RFC 2606) which is: @ SOA localhost. root.localhost. 1 1h 1000 1w 1h NSlocalhost. A

RFC 6303 vs. BIND: NS ... has no address records (A or AAAA)

2012-01-09 Thread Irwin Tillman
RFC 6303 says that a recursive nameserver should locally serve a number of DNS zones. Section 3 provides this generic empty zone for this purpose, in master file format: @ 10800 IN SOA @ nobody.invalid. 1 3600 1200 604800 10800 @ 10800 IN NS @ The RFC notes: The NS RR is needed as some

Re: RFC 6303 vs. BIND: NS ... has no address records (A or AAAA)

2012-01-09 Thread Doug Barton
On 01/09/2012 14:13, Irwin Tillman wrote: RFC 6303 says that a recursive nameserver should locally serve a number of DNS zones. Section 3 provides this generic empty zone for this purpose, in master file format: @ 10800 IN SOA @ nobody.invalid. 1 3600 1200 604800 10800 @ 10800 IN NS @