At 00:04 08-07-2011, Chris Buxton wrote:
As for Kevin's assertion that the SOA record in the authority
section is required for a negative response, this is also incorrect.
RFC 2308 is a proposed standard, not a standard. Further, section 8
of this RFC does not say explicitly that an SOA must
On Jul 7, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Feng He wrote:
2011/7/8 Kevin Darcy k...@chrysler.com:
I think it's worth emphasizing that in the first case, the contents of the
Authority Section were *mandatory* (see RFC 2308, Negative Caching), whereas
in the second case the authoritative nameserver was
On 7/8/2011 3:04 AM, Chris Buxton wrote:
On Jul 7, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Feng He wrote:
2011/7/8 Kevin Darcyk...@chrysler.com:
I think it's worth emphasizing that in the first case, the contents of the
Authority Section were *mandatory* (see RFC 2308, Negative Caching), whereas
in the second case
On Jul 8, 2011, at 9:05 AM, Kevin Darcy wrote:
On 7/8/2011 3:04 AM, Chris Buxton wrote:
As for Kevin's assertion that the SOA record in the authority section is
required for a negative response, this is also incorrect. RFC 2308 is a
proposed standard, not a standard.
OK, I stand
On 07/07/11 04:56, pa...@laposte.net wrote:
Hello,
I got two different forms of AUTHORITY SECTION from the dig, for example,
$ dig mydots.net @ns7.dnsbed.com
; DiG 9.4.2-P2.1 mydots.net @ns7.dnsbed.com
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status:
On 7/7/2011 1:50 AM, Torinthiel wrote:
On 07/07/11 04:56, pa...@laposte.net wrote:
Hello,
I got two different forms of AUTHORITY SECTION from the dig, for example,
$ dig mydots.net @ns7.dnsbed.com
; DiG 9.4.2-P2.1 mydots.net @ns7.dnsbed.com
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;;
2011/7/8 Kevin Darcy k...@chrysler.com:
I think it's worth emphasizing that in the first case, the contents of the
Authority Section were *mandatory* (see RFC 2308, Negative Caching), whereas
in the second case the authoritative nameserver was *optionally* providing
NS records in the
In message AANLkTi=9B07Q=flysn6s-0scossneuxms0qgy9h+o...@mail.gmail.com, terr
y writes:
Hello,
When I delegate a subdomain in a zone example.com, the config in
named.conf is like:
test.example.com. 3600 IN NS ns1.another.com.
test.example.com. 3600 IN NS ns2.another.com.
Then I
2011/3/4 Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org:
In message AANLkTi=9B07Q=flysn6s-0scossneuxms0qgy9h+o...@mail.gmail.com,
terr
y writes:
Hello,
When I delegate a subdomain in a zone example.com, the config in
named.conf is like:
test.example.com. 3600 IN NS ns1.another.com.
test.example.com.
Dnia 2011-03-04 23:07 terry napisał(a):
Look at RA and RD. If the server recurses, you will get a answer.
If the server does not recurse, you will get a referral. Then there
are the really old broken servers which get this wrong.
Hi Mark,
Please see this for details:
$ dig nsbeta.info
But in this case, you're asking the authotrative server. Authorative server
answers in answer section, as it knows the answer. Authorative section is
for 'I don't know, ask ...'
The rule above goes for servers which are not authorative for a given zone.
Torinthiel
2011/3/5 Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org:
So why does ns33.domaincontrol.com answer with ANSWER SECTION rather
than AUTHORITY SECTION?
If you ask with rd=0 (+norec), which is what nameservers do, you
get the referral. Presumably ns33.domaincontrol.com is running
BIND 8 which didn't fully comply
12 matches
Mail list logo
