Am 08.06.2018 um 16:28 schrieb Klaus Darilion:
> Great: I just noticed that installing knot-dnsutils uninstalls dnsutils.
> Is kdig completely backwards-compatible to dig?
Answering myself: No :-( (e.g +trace is missing)
So, it is bad that kdig and dig can not be installed concurrently (at
Great: I just noticed that installing knot-dnsutils uninstalls dnsutils.
Is kdig completely backwards-compatible to dig?
Klaus
Am 08.06.2018 um 16:20 schrieb Daniel Salzman:
> kdig notify example.com +tcp
>
>
> On 06/08/2018 04:18 PM, Klaus Darilion wrote:
>> btw: does anybody knows a tool for
kdig notify example.com +tcp
On 06/08/2018 04:18 PM, Klaus Darilion wrote:
> btw: does anybody knows a tool for sending NOTIFYs over TCP?
> Thanks
> Klaus
>
--
https://lists.nic.cz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/knot-dns-users
btw: does anybody knows a tool for sending NOTIFYs over TCP?
Thanks
Klaus
--
https://lists.nic.cz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/knot-dns-users
Am 08.06.2018 um 15:21 schrieb Daniel Stirnimann:
>> Every outgoing DNS message from Knot is over TCP. We didn't want to wait
>> or deduce whether a slave got the message.
>
> I like this approach a lot. We had problems in the past that notifies
> got lost in a network which was not on our
> Every outgoing DNS message from Knot is over TCP. We didn't want to wait
> or deduce whether a slave got the message.
I like this approach a lot. We had problems in the past that notifies
got lost in a network which was not on our control. We had to work
around it by lowering the SOA refresh
On 06/08/2018 03:06 PM, Daniel Salzman wrote:
> Hi Anand,
>
> I fully understand your argument, but this was our decision in the past.
> Every outgoing DNS message from Knot is over TCP. We didn't want to wait
s/outgoing/knot-initiated
> or deduce whether a slave got the message.
>
> Best,
>
Hi Anand,
I fully understand your argument, but this was our decision in the past.
Every outgoing DNS message from Knot is over TCP. We didn't want to wait
or deduce whether a slave got the message.
Best,
Daniel
On 06/08/2018 02:59 PM, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> I don't run Knot
Am 08.06.2018 um 14:59 schrieb Anand Buddhdev:
> However, if you can't easily modify Knot to use UDP instead of TCP for
> NOTIFY, it doesn't bother me personally, because a NOTIFY receiver
> should also be able to accept TCP (TCP is required by DNS). But I can
> see Klaus's viewpoint. However,
Hi Daniel,
I don't run Knot DNS as a master, so I don't see this issue. Even if I
ran Knot DNS as a master, I'm not terribly bothered with NOTIFY over TCP.
Having said that, I don't think it's very fair to say that UDP is
unreliable, and there are various reasons for it:
1. NOTIFY is a hint,
Hi Klaus,
Knot DNS always sends NOTIFY over TCP. It's intentional, because UDP is
unreliable.
Unfortunately, it's not possible to easily switch to UDP :-/
Regards,
Daniel
On 06/08/2018 12:54 PM, Klaus Darilion wrote:
> Hi!
>
> One of our customers uses Knot 2.6.7 as hidden master which sends
11 matches
Mail list logo
