In article <mailman.564.1266963563.21153.bind-us...@lists.isc.org>, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote:
> In message <f677fefa1002230600n4694161cu315e5dd4beaaa...@mail.gmail.com>, > Micha > l Wesolowski writes: > > > > After some reading my present understanding is that correct response to > > AAAA > > query when there is such record in the zone and there exists another record > > of different type for the same name - is to reply with empty answer and no > > error (this applies to authoritative NS). So what ns10.az.pl does is not > > consistent with specification. That's correct. > > However I'm still not sure if bind shouldn't cope with this somehow. I > > understand that if it applied to final query for "www.goliszew.pl" than it > > would be correct for bind to cache it as negative for all types of records. > > But if it concerns bad respond for NS? - I don't know. I don't either. > Well one of the nameservers does not exist and the other is a CNAME. > Both of these are fatal errors for the particular nameserver and > as there are only two nameservers for the zone lookups fail. I hesitate to take issue with you Mark, but the problem is also that one of the nameservers has either an A record or a CNAME depending on how you look it up (A or AAAA query), and his caching server is keeping them both. > Add A records to the sincom.pl and jasnet.pl zones for virtual.sincom.pl > and virtual.jasnet.pl respectively. As the OP has pointed out that's not under his control, and if the same misbehaving servers are responsible there's the chance that both will be screwed up. Sam _______________________________________________ bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
