> -Original Message-
> From: bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org
> [mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 1:27 PM
> To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> Subject: Re: Forward zone not working
>
> On 2
> -Original Message-
> From: bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org
> [mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 1:16 PM
> To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> Subject: Re: Forward zone not working
>
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: MegaBrutal [mailto:megabru...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 9:11 PM
> To: Woodworth, John R; bind-users
> Subject: Re: Forward zone not working
>
> 2016-05-20 23:09 GMT+02:00 Woodworth, John R :
> > The below refere
On 20.05.16 21:09, Woodworth, John R wrote:
This is exactly what some colleagues and I are working to get a handle on.
We see this as becoming a larger and larger issue especially as IPv6 adoption
increases. We have had several customers already request generics at /96 and
larger blocks as they
2016-05-20 23:09 GMT+02:00 Woodworth, John R :
The below referenced I-D for "BULK" records:
* Provides "generics" which are automatically generated based on a set of
rules.
* The records have similar features as wildcards where they may be
superimposed
an appear only where more specific
2016-05-20 23:09 GMT+02:00 Woodworth, John R :
> The below referenced I-D for "BULK" records:
> * Provides "generics" which are automatically generated based on a set of
> rules.
> * The records have similar features as wildcards where they may be
> superimposed
> an appear only where mor
> -Original Message-
> From: bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org
> [mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org]
> On Behalf Of John Wobus
> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 3:08 PM
> To: bind-users
> Subject: Re: Forward zone not working
>
> On May 16, 2016, at
On May 16, 2016, at 5:35 PM, MegaBrutal wrote:
>
> 2016-05-16 19:45 GMT+02:00 Alan Clegg :
>> On 5/16/16, 1:30 PM, "MegaBrutal" > behalf of megabru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I want to have valid reverse & forward hostnames set up
>>> for this /64 subnet.
>>
>> This is silly. Don't do this.
>
On 17 May 2016 at 09:29, Woodworth, John R
wrote:
> >
> > > >Ideally every machine should be registering its own PTR record in the
> > > >DNS and addresses without machines shouldn't have PTR records.
> > > >The only reason ISP did this is that they were too lazy to manage PTR
> > > >records for
>
> > >Ideally every machine should be registering its own PTR record in the
> > >DNS and addresses without machines shouldn't have PTR records.
> > >The only reason ISP did this is that they were too lazy to manage PTR
> > >records for their customers.
> >
> > And because no ISP wants "you.suck.is
> >Ideally every machine should be registering its own PTR record in
> >the DNS and addresses without machines shouldn't have PTR records.
> >The only reason ISP did this is that they were too lazy to manage
> >PTR records for their customers.
>
> And because no ISP wants "you.suck.isp.com" to sho
In message , Alan Clegg writes:
> On 5/16/16, 6:30 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
>
> >Ideally every machine should be registering its own PTR record in
> >the DNS and addresses without machines shouldn't have PTR records.
> >The only reason ISP did this is that they were too lazy to manage
> >PTR re
On 5/16/16, 6:30 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
>Ideally every machine should be registering its own PTR record in
>the DNS and addresses without machines shouldn't have PTR records.
>The only reason ISP did this is that they were too lazy to manage
>PTR records for their customers.
And because no IS
In message
,
MegaBrutal writes:
> 2016-05-16 19:45 GMT+02:00 Alan Clegg :
> > On 5/16/16, 1:30 PM, "MegaBrutal" > behalf of megabru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I want to have valid reverse & forward hostnames set up
> >>for this /64 subnet.
> >
> > This is silly. Don't do this.
>
> Why?
>
>
On 5/16/16, 5:35 PM, "MegaBrutal" wrote:
>2016-05-16 19:45 GMT+02:00 Alan Clegg :
>> On 5/16/16, 1:30 PM, "MegaBrutal" > behalf of megabru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I want to have valid reverse & forward hostnames set up
>>>for this /64 subnet.
>>
>> This is silly. Don't do this.
>
>Why?
Becau
2016-05-16 19:45 GMT+02:00 Alan Clegg :
> On 5/16/16, 1:30 PM, "MegaBrutal" behalf of megabru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I want to have valid reverse & forward hostnames set up
>>for this /64 subnet.
>
> This is silly. Don't do this.
Why?
Most ISPs set up reverse & forward domain names for pool a
Temporarily I enabled recursion on the server and then the forward
zone worked well.
Now, if I could enable recursion for a specific zone only, then I won.
Do you have an idea how to do this? I only see options to restrict
recursion for clients. Now I want to control recursion by query (which
doma
If you want to delegate space to another server DELEGATE it. Add
NS records for the other server. Forward "zones" are NOT designed
to do this. Doing actual delegations is *not* hard and works with
every server in the world.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Aus
> -Original Message-
> From: bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org
> [mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of MegaBrutal
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 1:31 PM
> To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> Subject: Forward zone not working
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have
On 5/16/16, 1:30 PM, "MegaBrutal" wrote:
>I want to have valid reverse & forward hostnames set up
>for this /64 subnet.
This is silly. Don't do this.
AlanC
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 07:30:30PM +0200, MegaBrutal wrote:
> zone "y.y.y.y.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.x.ip6.arpa" {
> type forward;
> forward only;
> forwarders { ::; }; // IPv6 address of AllKnowingDNS.
> };
>
> Where x substitutes digits of my /48, y substitutes digits of my
> /
Hi all,
I have an IPv6 reverse PTR zone for a /48 subnet delegated to my BIND
server, and one of its /64 subnets are used with SLAAC + Privacy
Extensions. I want to have valid reverse & forward hostnames set up
for this /64 subnet. Generating 2 ^ 64 reverse & forward records for
BIND would be wast
On 3/19/2013 8:30 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 03/19/2013 08:10 PM, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
On Mar 18, 2013, at 23.04, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 03/18/2013 10:25 PM, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
On Mar 18, 2013, at 20.27, Gerry Reno wrote:
Using BIND 9.8.2
When you setup Samba 4 AD DC using BIND9_DLZ
In message <514911cf.5060...@verizon.net>, Gerry Reno writes:
> On 03/19/2013 09:26 PM, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
> > On Mar 19, 2013, at 20.30, Gerry Reno wrote:
> >
> >> On 03/19/2013 08:10 PM, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
> >>> On Mar 18, 2013, at 23.04, Gerry Reno wrote:
> >>>
> On 03/18/2013
On 03/19/2013 09:26 PM, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2013, at 20.30, Gerry Reno wrote:
>
>> On 03/19/2013 08:10 PM, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
>>> On Mar 18, 2013, at 23.04, Gerry Reno wrote:
>>>
On 03/18/2013 10:25 PM, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
> On Mar 18, 2013, at 20.27, Gerry Reno
On Mar 19, 2013, at 20.30, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 03/19/2013 08:10 PM, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
>> On Mar 18, 2013, at 23.04, Gerry Reno wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/18/2013 10:25 PM, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
On Mar 18, 2013, at 20.27, Gerry Reno wrote:
> Using BIND 9.8.2
>
> When
On 03/19/2013 08:10 PM, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
> On Mar 18, 2013, at 23.04, Gerry Reno wrote:
>
>> On 03/18/2013 10:25 PM, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
>>> On Mar 18, 2013, at 20.27, Gerry Reno wrote:
>>>
Using BIND 9.8.2
When you setup Samba 4 AD DC using BIND9_DLZ and your domain has
On Mar 18, 2013, at 23.04, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 03/18/2013 10:25 PM, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
>> On Mar 18, 2013, at 20.27, Gerry Reno wrote:
>>
>>> Using BIND 9.8.2
>>>
>>> When you setup Samba 4 AD DC using BIND9_DLZ and your domain has external
>>> servers (eg: www,mail) at external provi
In message <5147d5ae.5050...@verizon.net>, Gerry Reno writes:
> If it was more than just a few labels I would do it another way.
>
> But this will suffice, if I can only get bind to actually get the forward zon
> e working.
>
> I don't need any delegation. I'm not looking to slave the zone.
>
On 03/18/2013 10:25 PM, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
> On Mar 18, 2013, at 20.27, Gerry Reno wrote:
>
>> Using BIND 9.8.2
>>
>> When you setup Samba 4 AD DC using BIND9_DLZ and your domain has external
>> servers (eg: www,mail) at external providers
>> this means that the ISP and the internal network
On Mar 18, 2013, at 20.27, Gerry Reno wrote:
> Using BIND 9.8.2
>
> When you setup Samba 4 AD DC using BIND9_DLZ and your domain has external
> servers (eg: www,mail) at external providers
> this means that the ISP and the internal network nameservers will both have
> SOA record for the domain
On 03/18/2013 08:32 PM, Drunkard Zhang wrote:
> 2013/3/19 Gerry Reno :
>> Using BIND 9.8.2
>>
>> When you setup Samba 4 AD DC using BIND9_DLZ and your domain has external
>> servers (eg: www,mail) at external providers
>> this means that the ISP and the internal network nameservers will both have
2013/3/19 Gerry Reno :
> Using BIND 9.8.2
>
> When you setup Samba 4 AD DC using BIND9_DLZ and your domain has external
> servers (eg: www,mail) at external providers
> this means that the ISP and the internal network nameservers will both have
> SOA record for the domain.
>
> /etc/resolv.conf lo
Using BIND 9.8.2
When you setup Samba 4 AD DC using BIND9_DLZ and your domain has external
servers (eg: www,mail) at external providers
this means that the ISP and the internal network nameservers will both have SOA
record for the domain.
/etc/resolv.conf looks like this:
domain company.co
34 matches
Mail list logo
