> On 2 Jun 2021, at 14:59, Brett Delmage wrote:
>
> I have added the following two records
> _mta-sts.BrettDelmage.ca. 180 IN TXT"v=STSv1;
> id=2021060102;"
> _smtp._tls.BrettDelmage.ca. 180 IN TXT"TLSRPTv1;
> rua=mailto:br...@brettdelmage
I have added the following two records
_mta-sts.BrettDelmage.ca. 180 IN TXT"v=STSv1;
id=2021060102;"
_smtp._tls.BrettDelmage.ca. 180 IN TXT"TLSRPTv1;
rua=mailto:br...@brettdelmage.ca";
to a signed zone to enable Mail Transfer Agent Strict Tra
Inside the zone statement of the primary add:
also-notify { ipofsecondary };
This will make transfer in microseconds.
Let me know if it works for you.
Dan
On Jun 1, 2021, at 7:24 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
On 2 Jun 2021, at 01:18, Cuttler, Brian R (HEALTH) via bind-users
wrote:
My dns s
> On 2 Jun 2021, at 01:18, Cuttler, Brian R (HEALTH) via bind-users
> wrote:
>
> My dns secondary is often behind on its dynamic zone tables.
> It looks to me like we are doing automatic transfer IXFR but not requently
> enough, but randomly.
>
> It looks to me that default 10 second interva
To everyone who expressed an interest in this: my write-up has now been
published on the ISC Blog:
https://www.isc.org/blogs/doh-talkdns/
Thanks to Ondrej, Artem, Suzanne and Vicky for critiquing and reposting.
Best,
Richard.
___
Please visit https:
On 01/06/2021 17:18, Cuttler, Brian R (HEALTH) via bind-users wrote:
Hi Brian,
> From what I'm reading I should be sending a notify from the primary
> to the secondary when a dynamic zone is updated but I don't seem to be
> doing that.
>
> Would someone please point me to the option I'm missing
My dns secondary is often behind on its dynamic zone tables.
It looks to me like we are doing automatic transfer IXFR but not requently
enough, but randomly.
It looks to me that default 10 second interval for min transfer wait time.
I'm missing something but haven't found the magic yet.
Both pr
On 01/06/2021 16:01, Karl Pielorz wrote:
Hi Karl,
> Thanks for the pointer - ok, yes I can see it's probably EDNS / Flag day
> related etc. I missed that - probably as it's never caused us an issue.
> Annoyingly a value of 1232 causes a TCP fallback to a server out of our
> control that doesn't d
Folks, further to this issue, we still had the named.conf option
keep-response-order { any; }; // Disable TCP-pipelining
set as a workaround to an old vulnerability. Removing that appears
to have fixed the CLOSE_WAIT connections we were accumulating.
Regards,
Ronan Flood
On Thu, May 27
--On 1 June 2021 at 13:03:12 +0200 Anand Buddhdev wrote:
On 01/06/2021 12:55, Karl Pielorz wrote:
Hi Karl,
Anyone know why the Bind query appears to set such a low UDPsize? -
We've nothing in our config setting sizes, or maximums.
Here's an answer:
https://bind9.readthedocs.io/en/v9_16
It's not like there's been a paucity of "Yeah, I'm interested" messages, but I
agree with the rest.
+1000
I'd love to see it!
DNS over HTTPS support appears to be steadily increasing and it looks like the
next version of Windows 10, Windows 10 21H2, will including support for DoH at
the oper
On 01/06/2021 12:55, Karl Pielorz wrote:
Hi Karl,
> Anyone know why the Bind query appears to set such a low UDPsize? -
> We've nothing in our config setting sizes, or maximums.
Here's an answer:
https://bind9.readthedocs.io/en/v9_16_16/notes.html#notes-for-bind-9-16-16
Regards,
Anand
Hi,
If I switch between having Bind go lookup a name, and dig - I can see a
difference in tcpdump, i.e.
Bind 9.16.16:
11:44:19.041785 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 3613, offset 0, flags [none], proto
UDP (17), length 66)
Us.54445 > Them.53: 3636 [1au] MX? somedomain.org. ar: . OPT
UDPsize=12
13 matches
Mail list logo
