On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 10:49:50 -0800 神明達哉 <jin...@wide.ad.jp> wrote:
> I'm not sure whether we should do something about it, though. As you > pointed out, the configuration is already so broken: there's even no > delegation from the parent (or ancestor) to the child zone, so I'm not > sure if we can define any valid behavior in such a case based on > RFC3658 or any other standard document. > > So I'm wondering: is this something odd you just happen to find in a > test environment or something, or is there any practical issue because > of that? That found product environment... Our full resolver was sometimes return the CNAME record. That parent zone TTL is greater than child zone TTL. I known this is miss-configuration that NS Delegation. Named-checkzone returns errors that parent zone includes ns rcodes for child. and named can't load zonefile this case. > > -- > JINMEI, Tatuya -- Manabu Sonoda <manab...@iij.ad.jp> Internet Initiative Japan Inc. _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
