Interesting. I store my zones in MySQL (great for maintaining them) but
dump them to flat file format to hand to BIND. This allows me to DNSSEC
sign some of my zones. (I also hold the DNSKEY records in the DB).
How would BIND sign a zone that is in a Database? Can BIND do this?
ALL examples of usi
Thanks a lot.
That looks much helpful for me.
--- On Wed, 17/11/10, Josh Miller wrote:
> From: Josh Miller
> Subject: Re: MySQL BIND SDB
> To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> Received: Wednesday, 17 November, 2010, 9:38 AM
> On 11/15/2010 10:58 PM, Tech W.
> wrote:
> > Is mysql Bind SDB suitable for
In article ,
"M. Meadows" wrote:
> Can someone explain the following dig results? The first dig @8.8.8.8
> provides the expected result
>
>
> : dig +noall +answer google-public-dns-a.google.com @8.8.8.8
> google-public-dns-a.google.com. 85040 IN A 8.8.8.8
>
> We get the same result fr
On 11/15/2010 10:58 PM, Tech W. wrote:
Is mysql Bind SDB suitable for a production application?
We have many dozens of domains in the bind servers, what's the best way to
maintain the zones and records?
Absolutely - I have maintained 10k+ zones using Bind-DLZ / MySQL.
re: http://itsecureadmi
Does anyone know what happens if a domain with an older TXT spf record
is included in a newer SPF spf record? For example:
foo.com IN TXT"v=spf1 mx a:mail1.foo.com a:mail2.foo.com ?all"
bar.com IN SPF"v=spf1 mx a:mail1.bar.com a:mail2.bar.com
include:foo.com ?all"
Ideal
On Nov 16, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Gary Wallis wrote:
> IPAM is an Infloblox proprietary system that Cricket Liu is involved with.
No.
IPAM = IP Address Management. It is not a product, but rather a product
category. I believe the term was coined by Lucent, or whoever owned QIP at the
time, sometime
Looks like there is a intercepting "transparent proxy" in the path.
As dig +trace sends no-recursive queries the "transparent proxy"
doesn't recurse and so you don't get better answers.
I would be complaining to the ISP.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australi
Can someone explain the following dig results? The first dig @8.8.8.8 provides
the expected result
: dig +noall +answer google-public-dns-a.google.com @8.8.8.8
google-public-dns-a.google.com. 85040 IN A 8.8.8.8
We get the same result from KLOTH.NET
(http://www.kloth.net/services/nslook
Karl Auer wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 11:16 -0800, Chris Buxton wrote:
With a management solution, of course. :-)
[...]
The advantages include:
- Two admins with different ideas of how files should be named and
laid out don't butt heads. The management solution makes the decision.
- There is a
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 11:16 -0800, Chris Buxton wrote:
> With a management solution, of course. :-)
> [...]
> The advantages include:
>
> - Two admins with different ideas of how files should be named and
> laid out don't butt heads. The management solution makes the decision.
> - There is an audi
On 11/16/10 11:17, Thomas Schulz wrote:
Now that the root is signed, is DLV still usefull?
Yes. Not all TLDs are signed (although we're getting there), and not
all registrars support adding DS records, even if the registry supports
DNSSEC. Therefore, there are still islands of trust that ca
Now that the root is signed, is DLV still usefull? Will there be any
clash if I add the managed-keys statement without removing the DLV setup?
Tom Schulz
Applied Dynamics Intl.
sch...@adi.com
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://l
On Nov 15, 2010, at 10:58 PM, Tech W. wrote:
> Is mysql Bind SDB suitable for a production application?
To my understanding, yes, with caveats. However, I've never used it myself.
Understand fully what you are doing and how it affects performance before you
put it into production. That likely wi
On Nov 15, 2010, at 6:50 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2010, Stewart Dean wrote:
>
>> "adjusted limit on open files from 1024 to 1048576"
>
>> The named service works just fine.
>
>> which says to add a line:
>> named soft nofile 4096
>> to /etc/security/limits.conf
14 matches
Mail list logo
