Re: NXDOMAIN redirection in BIND 9.9

2011-09-29 Thread SM
At 14:52 29-09-2011, Michael Graff wrote: We came to the conclusion that no matter how much we wanted it to not be true, people find a way to do NXDOMAIN if they want to. The issue is not ours to push, it's between the ISP and the customer ultimately, and people will do it -- and more intrusiv

Re: Re: NXDOMAIN redirection in BIND 9.9

2011-09-29 Thread 刘明星：）
How does ISP use a proxy to filters answers and returns whatever they want to the customer? Mingxing, Liu CNNIC liumingx...@cnnic.cn 发件人： Michael Graff 发送时间： 2011-09-30 05:52:48 收件人： owens 抄送： bind-users 主题： Re: NXDOMAIN redirection in BIND 9.9 On Sep 29, 2011, at 4:06 PM, Bill Owen

Re: dnssec question. confused.

2011-09-29 Thread Joseph Karpenko
Just an FYI - This is no longer the case for ASA/PIX after the commit of CSCta35563 - which went into the codebase in 2009.11. After the above commit, "the default" has been changed. Non-EDNS replies will still have the message length set to 512. But EDNS replies will use the advertised buffer s

Re: NXDOMAIN redirection in BIND 9.9

2011-09-29 Thread Michael Graff
On Sep 29, 2011, at 4:06 PM, Bill Owens wrote: > I've obviously been asleep and not following along with the announcements of > new features in BIND 9.9 until today I'm happy you read it, and hope to see you at the forum/customer webinar next week! I'll be speaking, and will bring my fireproof

NXDOMAIN redirection in BIND 9.9

2011-09-29 Thread Bill Owens
I've obviously been asleep and not following along with the announcements of new features in BIND 9.9 until today. . . both Evan's blog post and the announcement of next week's webinar include NXDOMAIN redirection as the

Re: updating Bind made it slower

2011-09-29 Thread Tom Schmitt
> > Why not try the latest version, really? Pick a test host. Install > 9.8.1+. > Time it again. Then let's talk. Such things take time. Did it now, but it didn't changed anything. It seemes that the performance optimization (which is mentioned in the releasenotes for startup) doesn't affec

Re: updating Bind made it slower

2011-09-29 Thread Tom Schmitt
> > I have not the slightest clue why, I had suspected that rndc reconfig > > would be much faster, especially is there is no altering in the > > config at all. > > > How are you testing this? > > 'time rndc reconfing'? Yes. > Or do you stop answering queries and time that? No. > How l

RE: resolv record without domain

2011-09-29 Thread Lightner, Jeff
Right - the issue here is the lookup not the DNS record itself. On UNIX/Linux hosts the file is /etc/resolv.conf. However, I do see a DNS configuration issue here as well. There should NOT be a dot after "name" in the A record - that tells it NOT to append the domain name. -Original

RE: CNAME or A record?

2011-09-29 Thread Lightner, Jeff
What you responded to below was simply my agreement that one doesn't use DNS for web "redirects". I didn't suggest he doesn't still need two records to get their in the first place. I should think it was clear from my original post in the thread that I was saying he should have two records a

Re: resolv record without domain

2011-09-29 Thread Warren Kumari
On Sep 29, 2011, at 9:25 AM, Gabriele Gabriele wrote: > Hello dear mailinglist, > I have a little problem with my bind configuration, I explain you the > situation > I have a domain example.com with many record and every things work well, now > I need to resolv an name of my servers without spe

resolv record without domain

2011-09-29 Thread Gabriele Gabriele
Hello dear mailinglist, I have a little problem with my bind configuration, I explain you the situation I have a domain example.com with many record and every things work well, now I need to resolv an name of my servers without specify the domain, for example; name. IN A 1.1.1.1 but if I tr