> Am I correct in thinking that in the case of a hidden master and a chain
> of slaves, that the first publicly acessable slave would do the signing
> and that in any case only one instance of bind should do the signing?
The signer doesn't even have to be publicly accessible if you don't want it
t
Thomas Schulz wrote:
>
> Am I correct in thinking that in the case of a hidden master and a chain
> of slaves, that the first publicly acessable slave would do the signing
> and that in any case only one instance of bind should do the signing?
It is better if the hidden master does the signing, s
On Dec 12 2013, Thomas Schulz wrote:
Sorry for the bad advice.
Am I correct in thinking that in the case of a hidden master and a chain
of slaves, that the first publicly acessable slave would do the signing
and that in any case only one instance of bind should do the signing?
It would be str
Sorry for the bad advice.
Am I correct in thinking that in the case of a hidden master and a chain
of slaves, that the first publicly acessable slave would do the signing
and that in any case only one instance of bind should do the signing?
Tom Schulz
Applied Dynamics Intl.
sch...@adi.com
___
On 11.12.2013 21:09, Mark Andrews wrote:
For normal slave zones (unsigned) it works fine. Is this a known bug?
>Where can I open a bug report? Any workarounds?
You can report bugs tobind9-b...@isc.org. That being said this one is
trivial.
Thanks, works fine.
regards
Klaus
_
In message <52a85d1b.2010...@pernau.at>, Klaus Darilion writes:
> Hi!
>
> # named -V
> BIND 9.9.3-rl.13204.02-P2
>
> I have configured slave zones with inline signing:
>
> zone "mydomain.at" {
> type slave;
> file "/etc/bind/mydomain.at";
> masters { 1.2.3.4; };
>
In article ,
sch...@adi.com (Thomas Schulz) wrote:
> Also, also-notify does not make much sense for a slave.
A permissible configuration is one where A transfers from B, and B
transfers from C. It then makes sense for C to notify B, and B to notify
A.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
> > For normal slave zones (unsigned) it works fine. Is this a known bug?
> > Where can I open a bug report? Any workarounds?
Bug reports can go to bind9-b...@isc.org.
> I believe that only the master can sign the zone.
> Also, also-notify does not make much sense for a slave.
With inline-signin
> Hi!
>
> # named -V
> BIND 9.9.3-rl.13204.02-P2
>
> I have configured slave zones with inline signing:
>
> zone "mydomain.at" {
> type slave;
> file "/etc/bind/mydomain.at";
> masters { 1.2.3.4; };
> key-directory "/etc/bind/keys";
> auto-dnssec main
Same problem with:
# named -V
BIND 9.9.4-P1
On 11.12.2013 13:39, Klaus Darilion wrote:
Hi!
# named -V
BIND 9.9.3-rl.13204.02-P2
I have configured slave zones with inline signing:
zone "mydomain.at" {
type slave;
file "/etc/bind/mydomain.at";
masters { 1.2.3.4; };
Hi!
# named -V
BIND 9.9.3-rl.13204.02-P2
I have configured slave zones with inline signing:
zone "mydomain.at" {
type slave;
file "/etc/bind/mydomain.at";
masters { 1.2.3.4; };
key-directory "/etc/bind/keys";
auto-dnssec maintain;
inline-signing y
11 matches
Mail list logo
