Re: signing for a hidden primary

hi mark >> hidden primary can not sign. can the public primary which fetches >> from it, and happens to be primary for the parent zone, do bitw >> signing? > > In-line signing is the concept you are looking for and yes named > supports it. i know bind9 does bitw. happy to learn it is called in

Re: signing for a hidden primary

In-line signing is the concept you are looking for and yes named supports it. -- Mark Andrews > On 22 Jan 2023, at 07:42, Randy Bush wrote: > > hidden primary can not sign. can the public primary which fetches from > it, and happens to be primary for the parent zone, do bitw signing? > > r

Re: "not exact" error message

> The consistency checks are not new. The message indicates that > the IXFR contained a delete request for a record that doesn't > exist or an add for a record that exists. Named recovers be > performing an AXFR of the zone. Interesting. BIND 9.16.36 does not produce this log message, so it was e

Re: "not exact" error message

The consistency checks are not new. The message indicates that the IXFR contained a delete request for a record that doesn’t exist or an add for a record that exists. Named recovers be performing an AXFR of the zone. -- Mark Andrews > On 22 Jan 2023, at 04:31, Havard Eidnes via bind-users >

signing for a hidden primary

hidden primary can not sign. can the public primary which fetches from it, and happens to be primary for the parent zone, do bitw signing? randy -- Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list ISC funds the development of this software with paid support

"not exact" error message

Hi, I tried using BIND 9.18.10 as a downstream name server of an OpenDNSSEC 2.1.8 installation, but after sorting out the ACL issues on the OpenDNSSEC side, zone transfers failed with messages such as these: Jan 21 17:15:34 new-ns named[22056]: transfer of '4.38.158.in-addr.arpa/IN' from 158.38.