Makes sense. Better safe than sorry.
Thanks,
Steve.
>
> On October 21, 2015 at 4:01 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
>
> To prevent cache poisoning via cnames. It it simpler to always
> lookup the target of the cname that to figure out if we would
> accepted the following data
On Wed, 2015-10-21 at 20:42 +, Lightner, Jeff wrote:
> Because the purpose of DNS primarily is to equate a name with an IP as
> applications talk to IPs not to names. When you have a CNAME you’re
> equating one name with another name. That other name then has to be
> looked up so the applic
To prevent cache poisoning via cnames. It it simpler to always
lookup the target of the cname that to figure out if we would
accepted the following data.
server A has zones foo.example and bar.example configured
server B has zone bar.example configured
bar.example is only delegated to server B
Thank you Jeff.
I was just wondering why, when the IP comes back with the first response, does
named ask again?
Is it just being literal (like me) or will it not always get the IP in the first
request (depending on the DNS server)?
Steve.
> On October 21, 2015 at 3:42 PM "Lightner, Jeff"
Because the purpose of DNS primarily is to equate a name with an IP as
applications talk to IPs not to names. When you have a CNAME you’re equating
one name with another name. That other name then has to be looked up so the
application knows what IP access.
This saves time if you have multi
I'm sure there's a good, simple reason for this, I just can't seem to find the
answer searching on the Internet.
Why does named perform a lookup for the A record when its IP is returned with
the CNAME in the first answer?
Using dig, I find play.google.com is a CNAME for play.l.google.com.
Whe
Hello John,
1.) Are these devices some type of VoIP device? I've seen many novel DNS based
scenarios used for VoIP before.[Harshith] yes, they are VOIP devices
which use "lwresd" to talk to external DNS Servers
2.) I assume the path has been sniffed, are other records used as well, say
S
>
> From: bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org
> [mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Harshith Mulky
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 10:50 AM
> To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> Subject: RE: bind-users Digest, Vol 2230, Issue 1
>
> No Mark, This is not a question I am asked to answer
8 matches
Mail list logo
