On 14.04.16 08:31, Daniel Dawalibi wrote:
> Anyone experiencing a reach ability issue toward g.root-servers.net?
Looks like you are not alone!
https://atlas.ripe.net/dnsmon/group/g-root
Daniel
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bin
Hello
Anyone experiencing a reach ability issue toward g.root-servers.net?
# dig @g.root-servers.net ns
; <<>> DiG 9.7.0-P1 <<>> @g.root-servers.net ns
; (1 server found)
;; global options: +cmd
;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached
# dig @192.112.36.4 ns
; <<>
In message , "Darcy Kevin
(FCA)" writes:
> I don't know about other GSLBs, but Cisco GSSes could be made to respond
> relatively sanely, with some careful configuration. We had to set up a
> "shadow" version of each GSLB-delegated subzone on BIND, and the GSSes
> would proxy all queries they coul
I don't know about other GSLBs, but Cisco GSSes could be made to respond
relatively sanely, with some careful configuration. We had to set up a "shadow"
version of each GSLB-delegated subzone on BIND, and the GSSes would proxy all
queries they couldn't handle themselves to/from this "shadow" ver
In article ,
"Darcy Kevin (FCA)" wrote:
> Really, there's no excuse, in this day and age, for a DNS-serving device --
> even a load-balancer pretending to be a nameserver -- to botch its responses
> to queries.
Load balancers routinely botch requests for any type other than the
specific
To be clear, "turning off" IPv6 in named (via the -4 flag or other means),
doesn't mean named won't try to resolve any records, especially if one of
your (presumably IPv6-enabled) clients requests them. So, even with IPv6
"turned off", if there are nameservers on the Internet that -- for wh
6 matches
Mail list logo
