Hello,
We are facing Random update failures issue with the BIND. Here are the full
details about the issue, request help in overcoming this problem
1. BIND version used is 9.11.1-P3
2. Single BIND named server is used for both DNS updates and query traffic
3. Hardware used is DL360 Gen9 hardware
Bob McDonald wrote:
> Is that a functionality change from previous versions? I seem to remember
> it working at the info level.
It appears to be due to an unintended change. I've submitted a patch to fix it
https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/bind9/merge_requests/290
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch
from the Bv9ARM: (9.11.3)
request-nsid
If yes, then an empty EDNS(0) NSID (Name Server Identifier) option is sent
with all
queries to authoritative name servers during iterative resolution. If the
authoritative
server returns an NSID option in its response, then its contents are logged
in the reso
Is that a functionality change from previous versions? I seem to remember
it working at the info level.
I could be wrong...
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
> Bob McDonald wrote:
>
> > I have a server that has request-nsid yes; specified in the options block
> > within named.
Bob McDonald wrote:
> I have a server that has request-nsid yes; specified in the options block
> within named.conf. However, I don't see the NSID responses in the resolver
> channel log file.
It only appears at debug level 3 or greater.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
Malin, So
I have a server that has request-nsid yes; specified in the options block
within named.conf. However, I don't see the NSID responses in the resolver
channel log file. Anyone else see this behaviour? dig +nsid seems to work.
Regards,
Bob
___
Please visit
Paul Roberts wrote:
>
> This seems to imply on slide 16 that with lower query rates, BIND 9.8
> has a habit of sending fairly significant volumes to DNS servers with
> higher rtts. I am wondering if this is still the case in BIND 9.10 or
> 9.11 and whether there is anything that can be done about
Brian Keifer wrote:
>
> The architecture I've been working with so far is a pair of front-end proxy
> servers running keepalived to share a virtual IP and PowerDNS's dnsdist as
> the actual proxy. The proxies set ECS to the client's IP address and pass
> the request to one of four back-end cachin
Hello,
I am researching an issue we are seeing with significant volumes of DNS traffic
being sent to non-local forwarders. I think I understand how the srtt algorithm
works, but I am seeing more traffic going to the non-local forwarders than I
was expecting.
To give you some context, we have
9 matches
Mail list logo
