In message <4d26508c.7090...@gmail.com>, Gary Wallis writes:
> (Some dig output lines deleted to keep short)
>
> Why does this not work (but below next dig with +trace seems to imply
> that it should?):
More modern version of dig report the error "BAD (HORIZONTAL) REFERRAL".
If 147.95.81.in-add
Phil Mayers writes:
Delegation nameservers above differ from nameservers in-zone below
147.95.81.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN NS ns2.callingcloud.net.
147.95.81.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN NS ns1.callingcloud.net.
;; Received 96 bytes from 207.218.247.135#53(ns1.theplanet.com)
On 01/06/2011 11:30 PM, Gary Wallis wrote:
(Some dig output lines deleted to keep short)
Why does this not work (but below next dig with +trace seems to imply
that it should?):
The delegation looks invalid:
147.95.81.in-addr.arpa. 172800 IN NS ns1.theplanet.com.
147.95.81.in-addr
(Some dig output lines deleted to keep short)
Why does this not work (but below next dig with +trace seems to imply
that it should?):
[r...@web0 /]# dig -x 81.95.147.100
; <<>> DiG 9.3.6-P1-RedHat-9.3.6-4.P1.el5_4.2 <<>> -x 81.95.147.100
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADE
Hi Jeremy,
Thanks for the reply, I am using allow-transfer { ... }
I just heard back about five minutes ago for the admin and they had removed
our site as a secondary.
The RCODE 5 was right on the money telling me what was going on and the
logging
" failed while receiving responses: REFUSED "
and
On Thu, 6 Jan 2011, jim wrote:
> Upgraded today from BIND 9.2.4 to BIND 9.7.0-P2-RedHat-9.7.0-5.P2.el6_0.1.
> Pretty much copied the named.conf file from one to the other.
> We are a slave for a three other sites, two I download the zones OK, one I
> get REFUSED since the upgrade.
Check your BIND
Greetings,
Upgraded today from BIND 9.2.4 to BIND 9.7.0-P2-RedHat-9.7.0-5.P2.el6_0.1.
Pretty much copied the named.conf file from one to the other.
We are a slave for a three other sites, two I download the zones OK, one I
get REFUSED since the upgrade.
I thought permissions or config error on my
just FYI
> In message <20101229090538.17173t2lbw1zw...@mail.junc.org>, Benny Pedersen
> writes:
> > post to bind-users@lists.isc.org not to bind-us...@isc.org
On 30.12.10 10:02, Mark Andrews wrote:
> To: Benny Pedersen
> From: Mark Andrews
> Subject: Re: bind9 cache
> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 10
> Quoting from Chris Buxton's mail on Thu, Dec 23, 2010:
> > > Is there any option to add workarounds for specific domains /
> > > nameservers like the ones listed above?
> >
> > Possibly. You can try setting up conditional forwarding for the problem
> > domain, setting the authoritative name ser
(Resending it here, didn't mean to reply just to you Alan)
> On 1/6/2011 3:38 AM, Eivind Olsen wrote:
>> (Yes, I know it's best practice to combine the authoritative + recursive
>> functionality)
> [...] it's NOT best [...]
Yep, I knew that. Embarassing of me to miss that slightly important
"NOT"
There a patch from MS for using non-ms dns. I don't know exactly where
to point you, but if you're not using MS DNS you need the patch. I
needed my server guys to put it on all their windows boxes to make
things work properly.
On 1/6/2011 8:59 AM, Holger Honert wrote:
Hi Folks,
we are buil
Hi Folks,
we are building up a test environment with W2008R2 Servers registrating
against a bind dns server version 9.6-ESV.
the win-admin gets an error during installation and we can't even
identify the error on our dns server. wireshark traces show no errors
and correct handling.
the error cod
On 1/6/2011 3:38 AM, Eivind Olsen wrote:
> I seem to remember seeing something about DNSSEC validation not working
> when a BIND server is used both to serve the DNSSEC signed zone
> authoritatively, and as a resolver? Unfortunately, I haven't managed to
> find this information again, and now I'm
match-recursive is your friend.
In message , "Eivi
nd Olsen" writes:
> Hello.
>
> I seem to remember seeing something about DNSSEC validation not working
> when a BIND server is used both to serve the DNSSEC signed zone
> authoritatively, and as a resolver? Unfortunately, I haven't manag
Hello,
> I seem to remember seeing something about DNSSEC validation not working
> when a BIND server is used both to serve the DNSSEC signed zone
> authoritatively, and as a resolver? Unfortunately, I haven't managed to
> find this information again, and now I'm wondering if it was all in my
> he
Hello.
I seem to remember seeing something about DNSSEC validation not working
when a BIND server is used both to serve the DNSSEC signed zone
authoritatively, and as a resolver? Unfortunately, I haven't managed to
find this information again, and now I'm wondering if it was all in my
head.
(Yes,
16 matches
Mail list logo
