At 00:04 08-07-2011, Chris Buxton wrote:
As for Kevin's assertion that the SOA record in the authority
section is required for a negative response, this is also incorrect.
RFC 2308 is a proposed standard, not a standard. Further, section 8
of this RFC does not say explicitly that an SOA must be
On 07/09/2011 10:26, TCPWave Customer Care wrote:
> Hi BIND Users,
>
> In one of our customer sites, the DNS process was found running on
> multiple cache serversbut is was not responding to a dig @localhost.
>
> The named version is BIND 9.5.1-P2 with security fixes from BIND
> 9.5.2-P3.
FYI, t
Hi BIND Users,
In one of our customer sites, the DNS process was found running on
multiple cache serversbut is was not responding to a dig @localhost.
The named version is BIND 9.5.1-P2 with security fixes from BIND
9.5.2-P3.
The named process was in a hung state. The recursive cache could not
c
On 07/08/2011 05:11 PM, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
It should be possible to set up an authoritative-only name server so
that it does not recurse for anyone [except perhaps itself], but still
allow someone to get a full resolution of a name whose canonical name is
elsewhere. IMHBUCO.
Why?
The recu
4 matches
Mail list logo
