Hello Randy,
> so, i guess there is a named tcp dos going around. using bind9, is
> there an amelioration? or am i misconfigured in some way?
It looks to me that this is a side effect of a very permissive RRL
configuration. My tests with the following command indicate that you
have set response
Hello BIND-users,
Prior to BIND 9.13, new feature development releases were tagged as "alpha" and
"beta", leading up to the first stable release for a given development branch,
which always ended in ".0".
Now, however, BIND has adopted the "odd-unstable/even-stable" release numbering
convention
Don’t forget both UDP and TCP port 53 must be open.
--
Best regards
Sten Carlsen
No improvements come from shouting:
"MALE BOVINE MANURE!!!"
> On 1 Aug 2018, at 13.09, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
>
>> On 1 Aug 2018, at 10:01, Mohammed Ejaz wrote:
>>
>> Is there any way to troubleshoot fro
On 1 Aug 2018, at 10:01, Mohammed Ejaz wrote:
Is there any way to troubleshoot from the master server why there is
no synchnization to one more Slave.
Only partly. You may need access to the slave at some stage.
Master log should record NOTIFY messages sent to all slaves.
If not all desired s
I have cma.org.sa zone, configured in one master and two slaves. As
follows.
cma.org.sa
Server: UnKnown
Address: 212.119.64.3
Non-authoritative answer:
cma.org.sa nameserver = ns2.cyberia.net.sa (Secondary, slave server,
it is ok)
cma.org.sa nameserver = ns
5 matches
Mail list logo