On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 10:23:16AM -, David Carvalho wrote:
> Will there be any inconvenient setting minimal-responses to no? Having
> that default behaviour when using "dig" can be useful.
No, it's quite harmless. Minimal-repsonses saves a bit of time when
processing a query, but unless
It helps a lot!!
I think I understand now.
Have a great day!
Regards
David
From: Greg Choules
Sent: 25 January 2023 10:34
To: David Carvalho
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: recursion yes/no?
Hi David.
With "minimal-responses", usually I would set it to "n
inimal-responses to no, now I get the usual output when querying.
>
> For what I understand, there is no downside in maintaining this setting,
> right?
>
> Thank you!
>
>
>
> Kind regards.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Choules
> *Sent:* 24 Ja
t
Sent: 24 January 2023 20:12
To: David Carvalho
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: recursion yes/no?
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 04:48:34PM -, David Carvalho via bind-users wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I hope someone could help to understand the following.
>
> I have "my.
understand, there is no downside in maintaining this setting, right?
Thank you!
Kind regards.
David
From: Greg Choules
Sent: 24 January 2023 18:12
To: David Carvalho
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: recursion yes/no?
Hi David.
"recursion yes;" tells named t
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 04:48:34PM -, David Carvalho via bind-users wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I hope someone could help to understand the following.
>
> I have "my.domain.pt" and a master and slave server for the "my" part. I
> have been using "recursion yes" in both named.conf, as I want them to
Hi David.
"recursion yes;" tells named that it can (if it has to) make queries to
other places if it needs more information in order to answer a client
query. Pure authoritative servers shouldn't need it and should have
"recursion no;". So the first question is, do your servers make queries out
to
Define an explicit forward-zone on the recursive server for
private.dns.com In the zone definition, put the addresses of the
servers which can answer for private.dns.com.
--
Do things because you should, not just because you can.
John Thurston907-465-8591
john.thurs...@alaska.gov
Hi Sonal,
I do not think forwarders specified in zone work as fixed order. It
would not work by first contacting 127.0.0.1, if that did not deliver
the answer, try 199.165.24.21. Forwarders in bind are configured as a
set, not ordered list. It would use whatever just gives faster replies.
I am
Maybe a little confused here, but BIND won’t try another server if it gets
an answer. It will only try another forwarder if the query fails.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 12:21 AM Sonal Pahuja
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> Is there any option to set recursion =1 in named.conf file for the zone. I
> just
On Mar 28, 2013, at 7:56 AM, Manson, John wrote:
My external authoritative dns does not allow recursion.
We have vanity names like speaker.gov.
When we add an entry like:
www.speaker.gov CNAMEwww.house.gov
it fails because of the recursion statement even though the external dns is
:00)
So the first lookup does not fully resolve due to recursion.
Does this help?
-Original Message-
From: Chris Buxton [mailto:cli...@buxtonfamily.us]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 11:13 AM
To: Manson, John
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: Recursion issue
On Mar 28, 2013, at 7
On Mar 28, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Manson, John wrote:
From the internet:
Answer records
name class typedatatime to live
test.gopleader.govIN CNAME testwww.house.gov
Testwww from the internet:
Answer records
name class typedatatime to live
:
test.gopleader@mercury.house.gov:
test.gopleader.gov. 300 IN CNAME testwww.house.gov.
-Original Message-
From: Chris Buxton [mailto:cli...@buxtonfamily.us]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 11:49 AM
To: Manson, John
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: Recursion issue
On Mar 28
, 2013 11:49 AM
To: Manson, John
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: Recursion issue
On Mar 28, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Manson, John wrote:
From the internet:
Answer records
name class typedatatime to live
test.gopleader.govIN CNAME testwww.house.gov
Testwww from
On 28.03.13 16:05, Manson, John wrote:
I disagree with your statement about recursion.
What stops an authoritative server from doing recursion if you do not have
the recursion statement? I guess the bind default is recursion yes.
if your server does not allow recursion, it will still
On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:05 AM, Manson, John wrote:
I disagree with your statement about recursion.
What stops an authoritative server from doing recursion if you do not have
the recursion statement?
I guess the bind default is recursion yes.
OK, bad choice of words on my part. I did not mean
...@buxtonfamily.us]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 12:57 PM
To: Manson, John
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: Recursion issue
On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:05 AM, Manson, John wrote:
I disagree with your statement about recursion.
What stops an authoritative server from doing recursion if you do
On 28.03.13 17:09, Manson, John wrote:
Maybe my understanding of how bind works is faulty.
I thought bind would do the leg work to get an IP.
Especially when it is authoritative for CNAME domain.
Even a dig on mercury gives the same 'no IP' result.
Sorry for the bother.
I got the same result
On Mar 28, 2013, at 10:51 AM, Manson, John wrote:
http://www.digwebinterface.com/? Is one of the internet sites I use.
http://www.digwebinterface.com/?hostnames=test.gopleader.govtype=Ashowcommand=oncolorize=onstats=onnorecursive=onuseresolver=8.8.4.4ns=authnameservers=
You're getting caught up in semantics. The forwarding of the query *is*
recursive resolution. It's not a separate operation.
-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: recursion and forwarding
On 01/12/2012 06:15 PM, Adamiec, Lawrence wrote:
So when does recursion occur, before the query is forwarded or
never? I
thought recursion was supposed to go looking for the answers. If
recursion does not return an answer then does
Message -
From: Kevin Darcy k...@chrysler.com
To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: recursion
On 3/10/2010 4:45 PM, ic.nssip wrote:
I've got the idea!
So even I have no statement recursion yes, the server is still
recursive as time I dont specify
On 3/10/2010 11:37 AM, ic.nssip wrote:
If there is no option recursion yes (or no); specified in
named.conf, is the server still recursive?
Is recursion activated by default if option recursion (yes|no) is
missing in named.conf?
Yes, recursion is activated by default, but who is or is not
ic.nssip wrote:
If there is no option recursion yes (or no); specified in named.conf,
is the server still recursive?
Is recursion activated by default if option recursion (yes|no) is
missing in named.conf?
In modern BIND, allow-recursion defaults to:
{ localhost; localnets; };
Modern being?
-Original Message-
From: bind-users-bounces+jlightner=water@lists.isc.org
[mailto:bind-users-bounces+jlightner=water@lists.isc.org] On Behalf
Of Alan Clegg
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 2:25 PM
To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: recursion
ic.nssip wrote
Lightner, Jeff wrote:
Modern being?
According to CHANGES file:
--- 9.5.0a6 released ---
2206. [security] allow-query-cache and allow-recursion now
cross inherit from each other.
If allow-query-cache is not set in named.conf then
Lightner, Jeff wrote:
Modern being?
Actually
In the 9.4 CHANGES file I find:
--- 9.4.0a4 released ---
[...]
2006. [security]Allow-query-cache and allow-recursion now default
to the builtin acls localnets and localhost.
This is
I've got the idea!
So even I have no statement recursion yes, the server is still recursive
as time I dont specify recursion no;
It is going to make no difference if I'll add recursion yes; on options.
Is localnets a term I really need to use?
Currently I'm using an ACL defined for acl
On 3/10/2010 4:45 PM, ic.nssip wrote:
I've got the idea!
So even I have no statement recursion yes, the server is still
recursive as time I dont specify recursion no;
It is going to make no difference if I'll add recursion yes; on
options.
No difference.
Is localnets a term I really need to
On Jan 8 2010, Rick Dicaire wrote:
Hi folks, whats the difference between recursion no; and
allow-recursion {none;};
Not a great deal, but recursion no; changes the default for
empty-zones-enable to no, while allow-recursion {none;};
doesn't do that. (Probably there are other niggling things
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I have moved authoritative server to new IP address. I have changed the
DNS name pointing to it so the NS would point to the new IP.
Now I looked at the traffic and it seems that there are ~4 of 1000
recursive requests sent to it.
Are there any known
In article mailman.674.1254859742.14796.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk wrote:
It's RD (recursion desired) flag and my question is if any nameserver is
known by sending queries with this flag set.
I don't care if they do recursion themselves, but if anyone
Once upon a time, Matus UHLAR - fantomas uh...@fantomas.sk said:
I don't care if they do recursion themselves, but if anyone asks this server
with RD flag set, the answer will be venemous.
You should realize that anybody trying to debug possible DNS issues
might issue queries directly to your
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Hello,
I have moved authoritative server to new IP address. I have changed the DNS
name pointing to it so the NS would point to the new IP.
Now I looked at the traffic and it seems that there are ~4 of 1000 recursive
requests sent to it.
Are there any
On Sep 21 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I have moved authoritative server to new IP address. I have changed the DNS
name pointing to it so the NS would point to the new IP.
Now I looked at the traffic and it seems that there are ~4 of 1000 recursive
requests sent to it.
And do you know
).
Merci!
Todd.
From: Ben Croswell [mailto:ben.crosw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 5:15 PM
To: Todd Snyder
Cc: bind-us...@isc.org
Subject: Re: recursion for reverse/in-addr.arpa zones
Are there NS records and/or zone forwarding for the 10.131.10.0
In article ghub48$92...@sf1.isc.org, Todd Snyder tsny...@rim.com
wrote:
On our slave, there are no specific declarations for the 10.131.10 zone,
or even 10.131, just 10.
On the server we're slaving off of, there would probably be more, but I
don't know as I'm not in control of that
Are there NS records and/or zone forwarding for the 10.131.10.0?
If there is the servers will look to the most specfic domain.
--
-Ben Croswell
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Todd Snyder tsny...@rim.com wrote:
Good day,
We are working on an odd issue. I can provide more detail as
39 matches
Mail list logo
