δΊ 2012-2-9 15:27, Mark Andrews ει:
When you serve 10 zones do you want to update 1 address
record or 10 NS record on a address change?
When you serve 10 mail domains do you want to update 1
address record or 10 MX records on a address change?
Yup
On 09.02.12 15:13, Jeff Peng wrote:
I was thinking why RFC requires the values of MX and NS must be
hostname not IP.
because it IS the hostname, not an IP.
A points to IP(v4)
points to IP(v6)
NS, MX, PTR, CNAME... all others point to hostname.
otherwise, someone would need to decide what
In message <4f337229.1090...@staff.dnsbed.com>, Jeff Peng writes:
> I was thinking why RFC requires the values of MX and NS must be hostname
> not IP.
> Any glue? Thanks.
When you serve 10 zones do you want to update 1 address
record or 10 NS record on a address change?
I was thinking why RFC requires the values of MX and NS must be hostname
not IP.
Any glue? Thanks.
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https:
On 2/8/2012 10:32 PM, Matt Doughty wrote:
I have spend the afternoon trying to figure this out. The response I
get back from their nameserver looks fine to me, and dig +trace works
fine, but a regular dig returns a servfail. I have looked at the code
for invalid response, but I don't quite follow
Microsoft's servers are broken. "aa" should be set but it isn't.
Mark
; <<>> DiG 9.7.3-P3 <<>> winqual.partners.extranet.microsoft.com
@dns10.one.microsoft.com +norec
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 24074
;; flags: qr ra; QUERY: 1, ANS
I have spend the afternoon trying to figure this out. The response I
get back from their nameserver looks fine to me, and dig +trace works
fine, but a regular dig returns a servfail. I have looked at the code
for invalid response, but I don't quite follow what is going on there,
and the comment 're
Chris Thompson wrote:
>
> More directly, http://www.cs.indiana.edu/classes/b649-gupt/kangLiNDSS12.pdf
>
> This is definitely worth reading, being an interesting new twist on a
> fairly old theme.
Paul Vixie was trying to do something about risks in this area a couple of
years ago: http://tools.ie
Thank you very much for your help i'm going to try it wright now.
2012/2/8 Spain, Dr. Jeffry A.
> William: In my tests of DNSSEC, I have used 'auto-dnsssec maintain;'
> rather than explicitly signing the zone with dnssec-signzone. I believe I
> recall that you are using bind 9.8, so this should
On Feb 8 2012, Kazunori Fujiwara wrote:
Searching the title of the vulnerability with google results one PDF document.
http://www.google.co.jp/#q=Ghost+Domain+Names:+Revoked+Yet+Still+Resolvable+PDF
It shows details.
More directly, http://www.cs.indiana.edu/classes/b649-gupt/kangLiNDSS12.pdf
William: In my tests of DNSSEC, I have used 'auto-dnsssec maintain;' rather
than explicitly signing the zone with dnssec-signzone. I believe I recall that
you are using bind 9.8, so this should work for you as well. Here's something
you can try:
In your bind configuration use the following zone
William Thierry SAMEN wrote:
>
> dnssec-signzone: error: dns_master_load: ../etc/toto.com:12: toto.com: not at
> top of zone
> dnssec-signzone: fatal: failed loading zone from '../etc/toto.com': not at
> top of zone
This is because your zone uses an include directive to import the key
files, an
Absolutely Tony that was a key file which has been generated by
dnssec-keygen command.
My zone file is so simple and its look like that i have checked it before
with the named-checkzone and all is good in my file zone.
I changed option -o by the option -o only and now i had this error:
dnssec-
William Thierry SAMEN wrote:
>
> My file zone:
Er this looks like a key file, not a zone file. The key has been generated
incorrectly: it has a file name where the zone name should be.
> ; This is a zone-signing key, keyid 12762, for *../etc/toto.com.*
> ; Created: 20120207101131 (Tue Feb 7 11:
Searching the title of the vulnerability with google results one PDF document.
http://www.google.co.jp/#q=Ghost+Domain+Names:+Revoked+Yet+Still+Resolvable+PDF
It shows details.
--
Kazunori Fujiwara
> From: Michael McNally
> PLEASE READ: An important security announcement from ISC
>
> ISC
Hi, thanks for the quick answer,
but my problem is still not resolved, i check all your solutions but
nothing.
I'll show you my file zone which i wanted to sign and the command i used.
My file zone:
; This is a zone-signing key, keyid 12762, for *../etc/toto.com.*
; Created: 20120207101131 (Tue
On 07.02.12 14:10, Lightner, Jeff wrote:
Virtualization doesn't reduce use of resources but DOES separate into
what are perceived to be multiple "servers" so I'm not sure what you
mean by "you still have one server".
one machine, one piece of hardware. There's not much to separate there,
unle
17 matches
Mail list logo
