On 12/08/10 16:34, Yohann Lepage wrote:
2010/8/12 Phil Mayers:
Is this still the case (that NS->CNAME is invalid)?
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2181.txt
10.3. MX and NS records
The domain name used as the value of a NS resource record, or part of
the value of a MX resource record
2010/8/12 Phil Mayers :
> Is this still the case (that NS->CNAME is invalid)?
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2181.txt
10.3. MX and NS records
The domain name used as the value of a NS resource record, or part of
the value of a MX resource record must not be an alias. Not only is
the
On 12.08.10 12:02, Phil Mayers wrote:
> We've had a report this morning that a user can't resolve:
>
> 71.225.219.134.in-addr.arpa PTR
>
> ...I think this is because the parent zone NS records point to CNAMEs. I
> can see references to (much) older versions of bind not following such
> delegati
All,
We've had a report this morning that a user can't resolve:
71.225.219.134.in-addr.arpa PTR
...I think this is because the parent zone NS records point to CNAMEs. I
can see references to (much) older versions of bind not following such
delegations, but I'm not getting anything logged at t
many thanks to all for your help
mike
2010/8/12 Torsten
> Am Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:58:54 +0300
> schrieb Michael Dilworth :
>
> > hi
> >
> > many thanks for the help and apologies for my ignorance. The parent
> > zone here would be the .com ? how does one go about updating the
> > delegation in
Am Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:58:54 +0300
schrieb Michael Dilworth :
> hi
>
> many thanks for the help and apologies for my ignorance. The parent
> zone here would be the .com ? how does one go about updating the
> delegation in this?
>
> mike
You need to contact your registrar (Register.com) to do th
hi
many thanks for the help and apologies for my ignorance. The parent zone
here would be the .com ? how does one go about updating the delegation in
this?
mike
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
> On 12.08.10 12:40, Michael Dilworth wrote:
> > We are in the proces
On 12.08.10 12:40, Michael Dilworth wrote:
> We are in the process of moving our address space from a PA block to a PI
> block. This means I have had to use 2 new IPs for our name servers.
>
> the old address space was 89.221.36.0/24 and the new address space is
> 91.213.52.0/24
>
> the old name
hi all
i am wondering if anyone can help because I am a little stuck with this one.
We are in the process of moving our address space from a PA block to a PI
block. This means I have had to use 2 new IPs for our name servers.
the old address space was 89.221.36.0/24 and the new address space is
On 08/11/2010 13:43, Carlos Vicente wrote:
> One of our recursive resolvers, running 9.7.0-P2
You're a minor version and 2 patches behind the times. Download
9.7.1-P2, and while it's compiling read the Changelog to see if anything
there applies. Worst case scenario is that you reproduce the bug bu
10 matches
Mail list logo