In article ,
Job wrote:
> I thought setting minimal_responses = yes should lower the number of queries
> Do you think it is the opposite?
Yes.
With minimal_response = no, it doesn't fill in the Additional section
with records related to the ones in the Answer section. If the client
doesn't a
In message <218818d8-5ab8-40b0-fbc2-27c8966bb...@thelounge.net>, Reindl Harald
writes:
> Am 22.09.2016 um 22:41 schrieb Job:
> >>> If you want to avoid additional queries, turn minimal_responses off.
> >
> > I thought setting minimal_responses = yes should lower the number of querie
> s
> > Do yo
Am 22.09.2016 um 22:41 schrieb Job:
If you want to avoid additional queries, turn minimal_responses off.
I thought setting minimal_responses = yes should lower the number of queries
Do you think it is the opposite?
it's not about thinking - it's a fact
just because without additional respo
minimal-responses affects the size and not the number of responses.
On Sep 22, 2016 23:44, "Job" wrote:
> Hi Matus,
>
> >>If you want to avoid additional queries, turn minimal_responses off.
>
> I thought setting minimal_responses = yes should lower the number of
> queries
> Do you think it is t
> This is a common point of confusion. DNS does not transfer
> zoneFILES. Zone files are read and converted into the
> in-memory tree structure. Zones are sent in wire format
> from the in-memory tree. The receiving end populates its
> in-memory tree. It can then convert the information to
> z
Hi Tony,
>>it's a record in the additional section of
the response - specifically the OPT record which includes the EDNS buffer
size, DNSSEC flag, and other extensions
Is there an option to disable completely the OPT record information provided
from Bind?
Thank you!
Francesco
__
Hi Matus,
>>If you want to avoid additional queries, turn minimal_responses off.
I thought setting minimal_responses = yes should lower the number of queries
Do you think it is the opposite?
Thank you again!
Francesco
Da: bind-users [bind-users-boun...@l
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Woodworth, John R <
john.woodwo...@centurylink.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>
> We’ve recently noticed multiple $TTL values in transferred zonefiles which
> do not exist in the original zonefiles. They appear to be aggregates of
> TTLs set for individual records and I
Hello,
We've recently noticed multiple $TTL values in transferred zonefiles which do
not exist in the original zonefiles. They appear to be aggregates of TTLs set
for individual records and I am definitely a fan of the organized look and feel.
However, I am curious about how they should be int
In article ,
Pol Hallen wrote:
> Hi all
> I searching for about add a second zone to BIND but I didn't find how :-/
Add
zone "secondzone.com" {
...
};
to your named.conf.
>
> I've a standard zone: example1 IN SOA with record A 192.168.1.212
>
> this zone works perfectly
>
> I'd like ad
Hi all
I searching for about add a second zone to BIND but I didn't find how :-/
I've a standard zone: example1 IN SOA with record A 192.168.1.212
this zone works perfectly
I'd like add a second zone to network 192.168.10.0/24, the problem is
that my server has 1NIC and is connect to hardware
On 22.09.16 16:41, Job wrote:
in Bind 9.10 we tried minimal-responses = yes to limit "additional queries"
when resolving.
I notice that resolution is faster.
Actually, dig @host some_url still shows an additional query, maybe not needed
for a caching-only resolver:
; (1 server found)
;; globa
In article ,
Tony Finch wrote:
> Benny Pedersen wrote:
> >
> > why does reload not flush ?
>
> Often you want to reload zone files without throwing away the cache.
It shouldn't flush the entire cache, but it would certainly make sense
to flush entries within a forwarding zone that's modified
Job wrote:
>
> Actually, dig @host some_url still shows an additional query, maybe not
> needed for a caching-only resolver:
>
> ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1
That isn't an additional query, it's a record in the additional section of
the response - specifica
Hello,
in Bind 9.10 we tried minimal-responses = yes to limit "additional queries"
when resolving.
I notice that resolution is faster.
Actually, dig @host some_url still shows an additional query, maybe not needed
for a caching-only resolver:
; (1 server found)
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got a
rams wrote:
> When we have widlcard in middle labels, are we not treating as wildcard
> record?
In the DNS, a wildcard only occurs when the leftmost label is a *.
> Do we have any specific RFC for this.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4592#section-2.1
NOTE that wildcard rules can be confusingl
Am 22.09.2016 um 14:37 schrieb rams:
Greetings. When we have "something.*." with cname record, if we
query domain as "something.abc." , bind is not returning answer
and if i query with same name "something.*.", getting answer in
bind. When we have widlcard in middle labels, are we not treating
In message
, rams writes:
>
> Hi,
> Greetings. When we have "something.*." with cname record, if we
> query domain as "something.abc." , bind is not returning answer and
> if i query with same name "something.*.", getting answer in bind.
> When we have widlcard in middle labels, are we not treat
Hi,
Greetings. When we have "something.*." with cname record, if we
query domain as "something.abc." , bind is not returning answer and
if i query with same name "something.*.", getting answer in bind.
When we have widlcard in middle labels, are we not treating as wildcard
record? Kindly share info
On 21.09.16 14:49, philippe.simo...@swisscom.com wrote:
and after a forward add a rndc flush can help too ..
not needed unless old forwarders provide invalid data.
-Original Message-
From: bind-users [mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Matus
UHLAR - fantomas
Sent:
20 matches
Mail list logo
