Okay, so my named process rejecting my slave files during start up does
not represent a new feature of the newer code -- that's a relief.
Now, considering the observed behavior to be improper, I see my expiry
was too short. Since my files were older than my expiry, I guess that
explains it.
But
In article ,
"Gordon A. Lang" wrote:
> I have not been able to locate documentation defining the named
> start-up behavior. I am particularly interested in zone loading
> for slave zones. Is this information available online?
>
> For example, what if none of the listed masters are reachable a
You may also want to look at draft-andrews-dnsext-soa-discovery-01.txt.
Updatable zones have different needs to relatively stable zones.
Mobile (all?) machines should be able to add PTR records for
themselves when they aquire the leases or complete SLAAC and that
requires zone cut discovery.
Mar
BIND 9.7.2rc1 is now available.
BIND 9.7.2rc1 is a beta version of the maintenance release for
BIND 9.7.
BIND 9.7.2rc1 can be downloaded from
ftp://ftp.isc.org/isc/bind9/9.7.2rc1/bind-9.7.2rc1.tar.gz
http://ftp.isc.org/isc/bind9/9.7.2rc1/bind-9.7.
On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 11:23 -0400, Josh Littlefield wrote:
> Confirming, RFC 2308 makes it clear that the negative caching of all
> records for a zone is limited to the minimum of the SOA TTL and the SOA
> "minimum" TTL field (which was given this new negative caching TTL role
> in RFC 2308).
It's
I've been experimenting with loading a large number of master zones (on
the order of 250,000) in a single BIND instance, and have noticed that
'rndc reconfig' with this many zones loaded can take a very long time to
determine that it has little or nothing to do. Worse, the server stops
answeri
On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 23:17 +1000, Karl Auer wrote:
> - should I update my program to allow non-zero SOA TTLs?
The answer appears to be "yes, right now!" :-)
RFC2308.
Many thanks for your swift responses (and Alex, how could I ever have
doubted you?)
Regards, K.
--
~~~
On Aug 26 2010, Kevin Oberman wrote:
[...]
The SOA record should have a reasonable TTL, and the "minimum" field in
the SOA should also be set to a reasonable value, no larger than the SOA
TTL. If you don't change your zone data often, then you should let
people cache your negative answers for a
It makes the tread hard to follow
> Why not?
> > Please don't top post!
> On 8/26/2010 10:52 AM, Alexander Gall wrote:
> > Hello Karl
> >
> > On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 23:17:29 +1000, Karl Auer said:
> >
> >> Some time ago (at least six years) I wrote a program that, among many
> >> other related opera
I have not been able to locate documentation defining the named
start-up behavior. I am particularly interested in zone loading
for slave zones. Is this information available online?
For example, what if none of the listed masters are reachable at
the time of start-up? How frequently and for h
Confirming, RFC 2308 makes it clear that the negative caching of all
records for a zone is limited to the minimum of the SOA TTL and the SOA
"minimum" TTL field (which was given this new negative caching TTL role
in RFC 2308). If you put a 0 TTL on your SOA records, no one can cache
your negative
On 8/26/2010 10:52 AM, Alexander Gall wrote:
>> - should I update my program to allow non-zero SOA TTLs?
>
> Yes, unless I'm the one with the wrong end of the stick :)
Zero TTLs are evil.
Please don't use them (and if possible, update the zones that you have
deployed with zero TTLs to u
Hello Karl
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 23:17:29 +1000, Karl Auer said:
> Some time ago (at least six years) I wrote a program that, among many
> other related operations, creates new zones for a nameserver. This
> program creates new zones that have a TTL value of zero for the SOA
> record.
> That's wh
Some time ago (at least six years) I wrote a program that, among many
other related operations, creates new zones for a nameserver. This
program creates new zones that have a TTL value of zero for the SOA
record.
That's what RFC1035 seems to say it should do. When describing TTLs, it
says "For exa
I have successfully built on CentOS 5.5 (32bit)
(I do a very simple install with no desktop.. )
BIND 9.7.1-P2 built with '--prefix=/usr/local'
'--sysconfdir=/etc/namedb' '--disable-openssl-version-check'
'--with-openssl=yes'
Some notes I had made
---
Compiling from source is very simple once
15 matches
Mail list logo
