Re: per-zone-recursion?

2010-10-07 Thread Joerg Dorchain
On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 11:30:03AM +0200, Kalman Feher wrote: > >> > >> probably it was not thought because it's wrong. > > > > This point is getting religious now, IMHO. > Bear in mind that your rationale is based on getting an inaccessible DNS > server to return information that a client has co

Re: per-zone-recursion?

2010-10-04 Thread Kalman Feher
On 2/10/10 7:18 AM, "Joerg Dorchain" wrote: > On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 05:39:16PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: >> >> On 01.10.10 12:39, Joerg Dorchain wrote: >>> Well, I could agree agree that "wrong" means not thought of by >>> RfC-Designers and bind implementators (yet). >> >> proba

Re: per-zone-recursion?

2010-10-01 Thread Joerg Dorchain
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 05:39:16PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > On 01.10.10 12:39, Joerg Dorchain wrote: > > Well, I could agree agree that "wrong" means not thought of by > > RfC-Designers and bind implementators (yet). > > probably it was not thought because it's wrong. This point

Re: per-zone-recursion?

2010-10-01 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> > > Yes. To explain my setup further, there is a view based on > > > src-IPs for some clients, where recursion is turned on. > > > The rest of the world gets non-recursive answers, e.g. with > > > authoritative data, or refused. > > > > > > In case of that specfic forward zone, bind answers in t

Re: per-zone-recursion?

2010-10-01 Thread Joerg Dorchain
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 11:25:31AM +0200, Kalman Feher wrote: > > Yes. To explain my setup further, there is a view based on > > src-IPs for some clients, where recursion is turned on. > > The rest of the world gets non-recursive answers, e.g. with > > authoritative data, or refused. > > > > In ca

Re: per-zone-recursion?

2010-10-01 Thread Kalman Feher
On 1/10/10 9:15 AM, "Joerg Dorchain" wrote: > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 07:13:11PM -0400, Kevin Darcy wrote: >> Per-zone recursion control doesn't exist in BIND, because frankly it >> doesn't make sense. > > I used to think that, too, until I came to

Re: per-zone-recursion?

2010-10-01 Thread Joerg Dorchain
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 07:13:11PM -0400, Kevin Darcy wrote: > Per-zone recursion control doesn't exist in BIND, because frankly it > doesn't make sense. I used to think that, too, until I came to my specific problem. > > Either a zone type is meaningless *without* r

Re: per-zone-recursion?

2010-09-30 Thread Kevin Darcy
Per-zone recursion control doesn't exist in BIND, because frankly it doesn't make sense. Either a zone type is meaningless *without* recursion (type forward, type stub), or recursion is *unnecessary* because the nameserver answers from authoritative data (type master, type sla

per-zone-recursion?

2010-09-30 Thread Joerg Dorchain
Hello, I am puzzled with a bind config for a kind of dns-reverse-proxy situation. I have a server with only one public IP addresse, bind running on port 53 of it. This bind serves examples.net. A subdomain dynsub.example.net should be served on some other software answering DNS request with dyna