Re: ISC BIND 9.8.0 is now available

2011-03-02 Thread Noel Butler
In addition to my pvt email Evan The dev link page still shows 9.7.3 as current production, no 9.8.0, but going to all downloads shows 9.8.0 as current production, and as things happen in three's ... bind-9.8.0.tar.gz clicking on this yields a file called bind-980targzno periods, l

Re: dig result whiout "ADDITIONAL SECTION",why?

2011-03-02 Thread Warren Kumari
On Mar 2, 2011, at 8:49 PM, ShanyiWan wrote: > bind-dlz (BDB as backend) > > > [root@flyinweb ~]# dig @ns1.dnssafe.cn www.djytest.com > > ; <<>> DiG 9.7.0-P2 <<>> @ns1.dnssafe.cnwww.djytest.com > ; (2 servers found) > ;; global options: +cmd > ;; Got answer: > ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode:

dig result whiout "ADDITIONAL SECTION",why?

2011-03-02 Thread ShanyiWan
bind-dlz (BDB as backend) [root@flyinweb ~]# dig @ns1.dnssafe.cn www.djytest.com ; <<>> DiG 9.7.0-P2 <<>> @ns1.dnssafe.cn www.djytest.com ; (2 servers found) ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 23086 ;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, A

Re: Help with unresolvable domain (subdomain, actually)

2011-03-02 Thread Kevin Darcy
On 3/2/2011 1:57 PM, David Sparro wrote: On 3/2/2011 1:20 PM, Kevin Darcy wrote: I'm not saying I agree with this perspective, only that I've dealt with load-balancer vendors enough (Cisco in particular) to understand that this is where they're coming from. Besides, what alternative is there?

Re: Help with unresolvable domain (subdomain, actually)

2011-03-02 Thread Warren Kumari
On Mar 2, 2011, at 1:21 PM, Mike Bernhardt wrote: What's really strange is that when we attempt a query, be it DIG or an attempt to browse tools.cisco.com, they send some sort of query back to us from/to UDP 53 Many GSLB solutions attempt to figure out what the best location to serve fro

RE: Help with unresolvable domain (subdomain, actually)

2011-03-02 Thread Mike Bernhardt
> A few options: >1: once the LB knows that all back-ends are down, it can continue to answer >with the correct A, but drop the TTL to be much shorter -- this allows >things to recover faster. This would work well because the actually web site wasn't down, at least not yesterday. If I substituted

Re: Help with unresolvable domain (subdomain, actually)

2011-03-02 Thread Kevin Darcy
On 3/1/2011 6:30 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: In message<4d6d7268.1080...@chrysler.com>, Kevin Darcy writes: I got a trouble ticket on this too. From the looks of things, Cisco is using GSSes to load-balance this site. GSSes return SERVFAIL if all of the resources behind the load-balancer are down

Re: Help with unresolvable domain (subdomain, actually)

2011-03-02 Thread Warren Kumari
On Mar 2, 2011, at 1:20 PM, Kevin Darcy wrote: On 3/2/2011 10:34 AM, David Sparro wrote: On 3/1/2011 5:27 PM, Kevin Darcy wrote: See my other post. This is designed-in behavior for Cisco GSSes, since there is no "service unavailable, try again later" RCODE. When the question is "what i

Re: Help with unresolvable domain (subdomain, actually)

2011-03-02 Thread David Sparro
On 3/2/2011 1:20 PM, Kevin Darcy wrote: I'm not saying I agree with this perspective, only that I've dealt with load-balancer vendors enough (Cisco in particular) to understand that this is where they're coming from. Besides, what alternative is there? If the load-balancer returns an address th

RE: Help with unresolvable domain (subdomain, actually)

2011-03-02 Thread Mike Bernhardt
What's really strange is that when we attempt a query, be it DIG or an attempt to browse tools.cisco.com, they send some sort of query back to us from/to UDP 53. We drop it at the firewall due to some sort of "sanity check" so I can't see the contents. This is in addition to the SERVFAIL message.

Re: Help with unresolvable domain (subdomain, actually)

2011-03-02 Thread Kevin Darcy
On 3/2/2011 10:34 AM, David Sparro wrote: On 3/1/2011 5:27 PM, Kevin Darcy wrote: See my other post. This is designed-in behavior for Cisco GSSes, since there is no "service unavailable, try again later" RCODE. When the question is "what is the ip address of 'foo'" an answer of "the web se

Re: Help with unresolvable domain (subdomain, actually)

2011-03-02 Thread Warren Kumari
On Mar 1, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Kevin Darcy wrote: See my other post. This is designed-in behavior for Cisco GSSes, since there is no "service unavailable, try again later" RCODE. Yes[0]. W [0]: there is no "service unavailable, try again later" RCODE.

Re: Help with unresolvable domain (subdomain, actually)

2011-03-02 Thread David Sparro
On 3/1/2011 5:27 PM, Kevin Darcy wrote: See my other post. This is designed-in behavior for Cisco GSSes, since there is no "service unavailable, try again later" RCODE. - Kevin When the question is "what is the ip address of 'foo'" an answer of "the web server is down" in nonsensical. --

Re: Optimising rndc reload times on a slave server with 50,000 zones

2011-03-02 Thread Dan Durrer
Running off SSDs has also proved to help startup/reload times in our usage. Dan Durrer No-IP On Mar 2, 2011, at 5:32 AM, david klein wrote: > One other thing: on the filesystem in which reside directories that > house the zone files, set the mount option "noatime". This will > improve the perf

Re: Optimising rndc reload times on a slave server with 50,000 zones

2011-03-02 Thread david klein
One other thing: on the filesystem in which reside directories that house the zone files, set the mount option "noatime". This will improve the performance of re-reading the zone files because it will take out the necessity of updating a time-stamp for each read. -DTK On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 7

Re: inconsistency dnssec debuguers response and writing conseil for new areas zone

2011-03-02 Thread Niobos
On 2011-03-01 21:00, Torinthiel wrote: > On 03/01/11 20:17, fakessh @ wrote: > And about OVH - I don't know if it's related, but I've asked Polish OVH > how about providing DNSSEC, as .pl is planned to be signed mid-year, and > they've answered me they will probably be ready. This might, or might >