Re: [RESOLVED] Conflicting glue records?

Problem solved. After passing this information on to the proper personnel, the domain has been modified to once again use self- referential name-servers. The glue-records were modified as a result. Thanks to all who assisted. :) -- Milo Hyson Chief Scientist CyberLife Labs On Jan 8, 2009, a

Re: BIND Security Advisory (CVE-2009-0025; Severity: Low)

At Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:10:42 -0500, David Coulthart wrote: > > Would someone be able to provide some more details as to what > particular configurations of BIND this affects? My interpretation is > it only impacts recursive nameservers that have DNSSEC validation > enabled. And not even all

Re: Using bind 9.5.0 with Active directory

Nico De Ranter wrote: > Found some time to work on it again and it seams I did something wrong > last time as ms-subdomain now works! > > Thanks for your help!! > > I did notice one strange thing when turning on trace mode of named: > > Whenever an update request occurs I see a lot of messages

Re: Issues in delegating to subdomain owned by other company

In article , blrmaani wrote: > Thanks.. so if I dig further deeper on this it appears that the the > query being sent to the subdomain's > nameserver is NON-RECURSIVE. So, if the resource-records are already > cached on the subdomain's nameserver (assuming non-authoritative > nameserver here), t

Re: Problem resolving "www.lmsintl.com"

Apisa, Kathy (US - MABS) wrote: > I am running bind 9,4.2-P2 You'll want to upgrade that to 9.4.3-P1 for better security, performance, etc. > on windows and can resolve all external Domains names Really? You've tried them ALL? :) > with the exception of www.lmsintl.com

Re: Issues in delegating to subdomain owned by other company

blrmaani wrote: > I have configured my named (BIND-9) to delegate a subdomain owned by > our partner company. It's not clear to me what you're saying here. Can you explain in more detail? It's always better to use the real names, but if you can't, make up something that is clear. > The queries in

Re: Issues in delegating to subdomain owned by other company

In message <937b61bf-c12f-4498-b20c-8cd5613bd...@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, blrmaani writes: > I have configured my named (BIND-9) to delegate a subdomain owned by > our partner company. The queries in the subdomain are failing > intermittently. > > Our partner company IT team is not ready to

Re: Issues in delegating to subdomain owned by other company

Thanks.. so if I dig further deeper on this it appears that the the query being sent to the subdomain's nameserver is NON-RECURSIVE. So, if the resource-records are already cached on the subdomain's nameserver (assuming non-authoritative nameserver here), then the queries are responded else the que

Re: Issues in delegating to subdomain owned by other company

On 10.01.09 14:04, blrmaani wrote: > When we delegate a subdomain, should the nameserver to which we delegate > be AUTHORITATIVE? yes > What happens if the nameserver to which we delegate the subdomain is a > NON-AUTHORITATIVE nameserver (eg., cache-only name server ). ? Could this > be the reaso

Re: named configuration

Actually the question is not clear to me. Do you intend to know the options in named.conf to allow dynamic update or is it you are trying to find out how to add NS entries to the existing named using nsupdate? please clarify.. cheers Maani On Jan 8, 10:09 am, Oliver Block wrote: > Hello everybo

Re: named’s “/dev/random" error on AIX

Can't see what you posted.. can you post as a text? >From subject message it appears that you see /dev/random failure in syslog. What is the impact? Do you see issues in dnssec-keygen etc? On Jan 8, 10:47 pm, "Fuhua Zhang" wrote: > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > --

Issues in delegating to subdomain owned by other company

I have configured my named (BIND-9) to delegate a subdomain owned by our partner company. The queries in the subdomain are failing intermittently. Our partner company IT team is not ready to reveal their DNS configuration. When we delegate a subdomain, should the nameserver to which we delegate b

Re: negative cache TTLs

JINMEI Tatuya / escreveu: I strongly recommend you to upgrade to 9.5.1-P1. 9.5.0-P2 has several known issues that can lead to SERVFAIL, and it's normally not very easy to identify the cause. If you still see the problem with 9.5.1, please report it again. i have updated to 9.5.1-P