On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 08:35:52PM +0100, Patrik Lundin wrote: > > Given the +trace output you supplied that address is not part of the > trail from the DNS root, and in that case the only involvement is > answering the initial equivalent of "dig @216.146.35.35 . NS". >
For the archives: That should have been "dig +norecurse @216.146.35.35 . NS" since recursion is disabled when +trace is used. Regards, Patrik Lundin
