On May 5 2010, Lightner, Jeff wrote:
8:30 EDT 05/05/2010 and the world hasn't ended here yet.
The switchover of j.root-servers.net to "DURZ" is scheduled for
17:00-19:00 UTC (see http://www.root-dnssec.org/ - or just try
"dig dnskey . @j.root-servers.net"). We aren't there yet ...
We can cel
On 5/5/2010 1:32 PM, Lightner, Jeff wrote:
> 8:30 EDT 05/05/2010 and the world hasn't ended here yet.
>
> We can celebrate Cinco de Mayo in peace. If only I didn't detest
> tequila.
>
> Side note: I've actually been to Puebla Mexico which is where the
> battle that Cinco de Mayo commemorates to
rom: bind-users-bounces+jlightner=water@lists.isc.org
[mailto:bind-users-bounces+jlightner=water@lists.isc.org] On Behalf
Of Laws, Peter C.
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 6:09 PM
To: bind-us...@isc.org
Subject: RE: Preparing for upcoming DNSSEC changes on 5/5
> It may be the person that su
> It may be the person that suggested setting it was under the
> misapprehension that the two values would be the same but the quote from
> the Java testing tool made it clear that is NOT the case.
I think this is it exactly. But someone in the thread seemed pretty certain
that we needed to set
rk Andrews
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 12:01 AM
To: Laws, Peter C.
Cc: bind-us...@isc.org
Subject: Re: Preparing for upcoming DNSSEC changes on 5/5
In message
<789398ea51916246a8016370ebc0231f0f3...@it-rome.sooner.net.ou.edu>,
"Laws, Peter C." writes:
> Yes, I get all that. But e
In message <789398ea51916246a8016370ebc0231f0f3...@it-rome.sooner.net.ou.edu>,
"Laws, Peter C." writes:
> Yes, I get all that. But earlier in the thread, I noted that:
>
> "Mine are all saying "x.x.x.x sent EDNS buffer size 4096" when I run the
> dns-oarc.net test, which I assume is the defau
t: Monday, May 03, 2010 20:19
To: Laws, Peter C.
Cc: bind-us...@isc.org
Subject: Re: Preparing for upcoming DNSSEC changes on 5/5
In message <4bdf4b79.4050...@ou.edu>, Peter Laws writes:
> On 05/03/10 16:19, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > The test is a rough guide to the maximum packe
In message <4bdf4b79.4050...@ou.edu>, Peter Laws writes:
> On 05/03/10 16:19, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > The test is a rough guide to the maximum packet size supported by the path.
>
> So what would be the point of using edns-udp-size to something even
> smaller? None I can see ...
>
> What am
On 05/03/10 16:19, Mark Andrews wrote:
The test is a rough guide to the maximum packet size supported by the path.
So what would be the point of using edns-udp-size to something even
smaller? None I can see ...
What am I missing?
--
Peter Laws / N5UWY
National Weather Center / Network Op
In message <4bdf39f7.1060...@ou.edu>, Peter Laws writes:
> On 05/03/10 15:55, Lightner, Jeff wrote:
>
>
> > Also one of the links I sent earlier had a similar comment about less
> > than 300 bytes difference not being a problem. I had missed that.
> >
> > 4096 - 3843 = 153
> > It seems if I'd p
On 05/03/10 15:55, Lightner, Jeff wrote:
Also one of the links I sent earlier had a similar comment about less
than 300 bytes difference not being a problem. I had missed that.
4096 - 3843 = 153
It seems if I'd paid attention I'd not have posted my follow up
questions.
It's not on the dns-o
age-
From: bind-users-bounces+jlightner=water@lists.isc.org
[mailto:bind-users-bounces+jlightner=water@lists.isc.org] On Behalf
Of Peter Laws
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 4:29 PM
To: Kalman Feher
Cc: bind-us...@isc.org
Subject: Re: Preparing for upcoming DNSSEC changes on 5/5
On 05/03/10
On 05/03/10 14:56, Kalman Feher wrote:
You probably should. Your resolver is saying its capable of handling 4096,
but apparently your network path may not support that. The changes on the
The network path to dns-oarc.net doesn't, but that doesn't really mean
anything. To some resolvers, the
ghtner=water@lists.isc.org] On
Behalf
> Of Alan Clegg
> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 12:23 PM
> To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> Subject: Re: Preparing for upcoming DNSSEC changes on 5/5
>
> On 5/3/2010 4:36 PM, Lightner, Jeff wrote:
>
>> It sounds as if he read an ar
Feher
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 4:10 PM
To: bind-us...@isc.org
Subject: Re: Preparing for upcoming DNSSEC changes on 5/5
On 3/05/10 9:54 PM, "Lightner, Jeff" wrote:
> On doing that however, I now see the advertised value is 3839 but the
> "at least" value is 3828 on
On 3/05/10 9:54 PM, "Lightner, Jeff" wrote:
> On doing that however, I now see the advertised value is 3839 but the
> "at least" value is 3828 on one and 3827 on the other as shown below.
> Based on that it appears one should NOT set the edns-udp-size as it
> doesn't fix the problem.
This appe
tner=water@lists.isc.org] On Behalf
Of Peter Laws
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 1:16 PM
To: bind-us...@isc.org
Subject: Re: Preparing for upcoming DNSSEC changes on 5/5
On 01/-10/37 13:59, Kalman Feher wrote:
>
> Second, make sure the tested effective size appears in your named.conf
in
> the
.org] On Behalf
> Of Alan Clegg
> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 12:23 PM
> To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> Subject: Re: Preparing for upcoming DNSSEC changes on 5/5
>
> On 5/3/2010 4:36 PM, Lightner, Jeff wrote:
>
>> It sounds as if he read an article saying we have to implem
ere other testing I need to do?
-Original Message-
From: bind-users-bounces+jlightner=water@lists.isc.org
[mailto:bind-users-bounces+jlightner=water@lists.isc.org] On Behalf
Of Alan Clegg
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 12:23 PM
To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: Preparing for upcoming DNSSEC
On 01/-10/37 13:59, Kalman Feher wrote:
Second, make sure the tested effective size appears in your named.conf in
the options statement "edns-udp-size" on your resolver.
In your case:
edns-udp-size 3843;
Mine are all saying "x.x.x.x sent EDNS buffer size 4096" when I run the
dns-oarc.net
On 5/3/2010 4:36 PM, Lightner, Jeff wrote:
> It sounds as if he read an article saying we have to implement DNSSEC on
> our DNS servers or we'll quit working on 5/5? Is that the case?
>
> Also what is the drop dead date/time if so? 5/5 Midnight UTC? Some
> other time?
You don't need to do any
riginal Message-
From: bind-users-bounces+jlightner=water@lists.isc.org
[mailto:bind-users-bounces+jlightner=water@lists.isc.org] On Behalf
Of Kalman Feher
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 9:38 AM
To: BIND users
Subject: Re: Preparing for upcoming DNSSEC changes on 5/5
On 1/05/10 7:10 PM, "
On 1/05/10 7:10 PM, "Server Administrator" wrote:
> I tried OARC's DNS Reply Size Test on two of my name servers, both on
> the same network, behind the same firewall & router.
>
> Both came back and reported "DNS reply size limit is at least 3843"
> (results below).
>
> Is 3843 close enough
On Sat, 2010-05-01 at 13:10 -0400, Server Administrator wrote:
> I tried OARC's DNS Reply Size Test on two of my name servers, both on
> the same network, behind the same firewall & router.
>
> Both came back and reported "DNS reply size limit is at least 3843"
> (results below).
>
I'd image s
24 matches
Mail list logo
