Re: [question] new bind option "max-recursion-depth"

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 01:30:35PM +0900, Techs_Maru wrote: > However, > if the value of the default "7" would be the value that was created > based on the world data ? > ( Also for the default value of "max-recursion-queries 50;" ) I haven't personally seen any real world queries go more than 4 l

Re: [question] new bind option "max-recursion-depth"

Hi,Evan, Thank you for replying. I was able to understand, try setting to test servers. Thanks. However, if the value of the default "7" would be the value that was created based on the world data ? ( Also for the default value of "max-recursion-queries 50;" ) I want to know the recommended set

Re: Bind Migration best practice steps

Thanks for the response, John. Helps a bunch to know that you just have the single zone to worry about. I also did a quick dig on education.ucsb.edu (NS & SOA records). Looks like you're not running any of your own slaves, but are making use of two main university servers as slaves: ns1.ucsb.edu

Re: Bind Migration best practice steps

Thanks for the quick reply John, I answered some of the items in-line Hi John, First things first, some more info on your overall DNS infrastructure and how the 9.3.2 server fits in would be helpful. - Is this for education.ucsb.edu, other zones, or both? The NS is ONLY for education.ucsb

Re: Bind Migration best practice steps

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 5:29 PM, John Goubeaux wrote: > Hello Folks, > > I'm running a Primary Master Bind Version 9.3.2 on a crusty old Solaris 9 > Sparc box that is starting to act up. Needless to say I need to move this > service onto new Hardware/OS ASAP. > > > I've got a 9.81 Version up and

Bind Migration best practice steps

Hello Folks, I'm running a Primary Master Bind Version 9.3.2 on a crusty old Solaris 9 Sparc box that is starting to act up. Needless to say I need to move this service onto new Hardware/OS ASAP. I've got a 9.81 Version up and running on Ubuntu 12.04 ( installed via the latest pkg available

Re: Bind's handling of lame nameservers

On Dec 16, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: We tried to check aa for just this reason but there are to many broken authoritative servers which just don't set "aa=1" on all the servers for the zone that we had to back the code change out. I would just use a server clause to mark nameserver a

Re: Bind's handling of lame nameservers

We tried to check aa for just this reason but there are to many broken authoritative servers which just don't set "aa=1" on all the servers for the zone that we had to back the code change out. I would just use a server clause to mark nameserver as bogus. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St.

Bind's handling of lame nameservers

How do BIND caching servers handle received responses with no aa flag? We're running BIND 9.9.6-P1 and I received a report of a query that our server sometimes answered as expected and sometimes didn't. The offending name is not one we are authoritative for. I checked the offending name and found

Re: Question about how forwarders work

In article , Richard Thomas wrote: > Hi all, > > Having heard about recursion, is there a way of getting BIND to make > recursive DNS requests to the A.B.C.D and E.F.G.H DNS servers? Requests to forwarders always have the Recursion Requested flag set. So you could point them to your ISP's re

Re: Question about how forwarders work

On 16.12.14 09:33, Richard Thomas wrote: Having heard about recursion, is there a way of getting BIND to make recursive DNS requests to the A.B.C.D and E.F.G.H DNS servers? forwarding causes BIND to send recursive DNS requests, in both domain and server config. But note that you should only use

RE: Question about how forwarders work

Hi all, Having heard about recursion, is there a way of getting BIND to make recursive DNS requests to the A.B.C.D and E.F.G.H DNS servers? Thanks, Richard Thomas. -Original Message- From: bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org [mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Matus U