please ignore this. testing my mail client.
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
I'm running BIND 9.6.1_P1. The server has multiple virtual interfaces that
BIND
listens on:
listen-on { 127.0.0.1; 172.30.0.213; 192.168.43.98; };
Sometimes I can get quite a huge difference in response time depending on which
virtual interface I query against. For example, most of our users
In message <4cad0856.9010...@arcor.de>, Christoph Weber-Fahr writes:
> On 05.10.2010 16:45, Nicholas Wheeler wrote:
> > At Tue, 5 Oct 2010 09:19:49 -0400, Atkins, Brian (GD/VA-NSOC) wrote:
> > > From what I've read, everyone seems to frown on over-riding cache
> > > times, but I haven't seen an
Hello,
On 06.10.2010 01:16, Doug Barton wrote:
> If you would like to create a new thread your best bet is to
> store the list address in your e-mail address book and then
> create a new message to the list. By replying to someone
> else's message and changing the subject you cause your
> message
In message <4cacdf3c.9040...@chem.umass.edu>, Alex McKenzie writes:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> Jay Ford wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Oct 2010, Alex McKenzie wrote:
> >> Out of curiosity: what if it's a /16 or /8 network? Do those also get
> >> built as 24 bit files, or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jay Ford wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Oct 2010, Alex McKenzie wrote:
>> Out of curiosity: what if it's a /16 or /8 network? Do those also get
>> built as 24 bit files, or can they be built differently? I seem to
>> recall seeing an option for a reverse look
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010, Alex McKenzie wrote:
Out of curiosity: what if it's a /16 or /8 network? Do those also get
built as 24 bit files, or can they be built differently? I seem to
recall seeing an option for a reverse lookup file with hosts declared as:
x.y PTR host.domain.tld.
Does th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Miller wrote:
> On 10/6/2010 3:21 PM, Jay Ford wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Oct 2010, Alex McKenzie wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, we do have need -- or at least a use -- to have smaller
>>> subnets in multiple files, but without delegating authority. The
On 10/6/2010 3:21 PM, Jay Ford wrote:
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010, Alex McKenzie wrote:
Unfortunately, we do have need -- or at least a use -- to have smaller
subnets in multiple files, but without delegating authority. The
problem is that some of those small subnets should have a shorter TTL,
or other
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010, Alex McKenzie wrote:
Unfortunately, we do have need -- or at least a use -- to have smaller
subnets in multiple files, but without delegating authority. The
problem is that some of those small subnets should have a shorter TTL,
or other settings changed. If there's a way to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thanks for the quick reply, Matt.
Unfortunately, we do have need -- or at least a use -- to have smaller
subnets in multiple files, but without delegating authority. The
problem is that some of those small subnets should have a shorter TTL,
or other
For larger subnets just use multiple zones as necessary.
For 10.20.30.0/23 you have 30.20.10.in-addr.arpa and 31.20.10.in-addr.arpa.
For smaller than a /24 look at RFC 2317. That's only necessary if you want to
delegate authority to a different DNS server. If you have multiple networks in
a
> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 14:03:56 -0400
> From: "Lightner, Jeff"
> Sender: bind-users-bounces+oberman=es@lists.isc.org
>
> Of course some versions of nslookup arent' "standard" even for nslookup.
> The one on HP-UX actually interrogates local /etc/hosts file if
> nsswitch.conf says to use file
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greetings,
I'm setting up a new DNS server for internal use in the two
departments I support. Up until very recently, all our subnets have had
24 bit masks, which has made configuring bind very easy. However, we
now have three sizes, and may have
Of course some versions of nslookup arent' "standard" even for nslookup.
The one on HP-UX actually interrogates local /etc/hosts file if
nsswitch.conf says to use files first. I got so used to doing that for
years that when I tried to use nslookup on Linux back in 2005 I was
miffed because it was
Hello Kevin,
Wed, 06 Oct 2010 13:42:35 -0400 Kevin Darcy wrote:
> ISC has tried to kill it, but the beast is resilient and won't die.
> Invocations of nslookup are embedded in thousands of legacy scripts
> and some folks are unable or unwilling to change them.
Well said, Kevin! Just have sent s
On 7/10/10 4:42 AM, Kevin Darcy wrote:
>
> ISC has tried to kill it, but the beast is resilient and won't die.
Maybe we should call it a wombat then ...
> Invocations of nslookup are embedded in thousands of legacy scripts and
> some folks are unable or unwilling to change them.
Nothing quit
Hello Kevin,
Wed, 06 Oct 2010 07:47:41 -0700 "Kevin Oberman" wrote:
> I keep hoping for a BIND distro that upgrades nslookup(1) to:
> print STDERR, "nslookup(1) has been replaced by host(1)\n"; exit 0;
Short answer: never.
> I've been wishing that nslookup would go away since back in BIND-v4
On 10/6/2010 11:44 AM, Ben McGinnes wrote:
On 7/10/10 2:09 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
I can find nothing in the documentation that states such. If I missed
it, I'd appreciate someone pointing me at it.
I have some vague memory of seeing messages to that effect when using it
on a Solaris
On 7/10/10 2:09 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
> I can find nothing in the documentation that states such. If I missed
> it, I'd appreciate someone pointing me at it.
I have some vague memory of seeing messages to that effect when using it
on a Solaris system in around 1999. I stopped using it aroun
> Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 01:53:29 +1100
> From: Ben McGinnes
>
> On 7/10/10 1:47 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> >
> > I keep hoping for a BIND distro that upgrades nslookup(1) to:
> > print STDERR, "nslookup(1) has been replaced by host(1)\n"; exit 0;
>
> Wasn't nslookup already deprecated about
On 7/10/10 1:47 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
> I keep hoping for a BIND distro that upgrades nslookup(1) to:
> print STDERR, "nslookup(1) has been replaced by host(1)\n"; exit 0;
Wasn't nslookup already deprecated about ten years or so ago?
Regards,
Ben
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP dig
> Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 10:35:32 -0400
> From: Kevin Darcy
> Sender: bind-users-bounces+oberman=es@lists.isc.org
>
> On 10/5/2010 3:49 PM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 20:30, Eivind Olsen wrote:
> >
> >>> However, another site that _does_ work (with both nameservers on
On 10/5/2010 3:49 PM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 20:30, Eivind Olsen wrote:
However, another site that _does_ work (with both nameservers on this
host, not just ns1) shows the same thing:
# nslookup ns1.sharingserver.eu 178.63.65.136
Server: 178.63.65.136
Address:
Hi Florian,
It's this one which is also in 9.6-ESV-R2:
2869. [bug] Fix arguments to dns_keytable_findnextkeynode() call.
RT #20877]
Regards,
Cathy
On 03/10/10 11:06, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Mark Andrews:
* If BIND, acting as a DNSSEC validating server, has two or more
trust
25 matches
Mail list logo
