Re: recursion yes/no?

2023-01-25 Thread Evan Hunt
On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 10:23:16AM -, David Carvalho wrote: > Will there be any inconvenient setting minimal-responses to no? Having > that default behaviour when using "dig" can be useful. No, it's quite harmless. Minimal-repsonses saves a bit of time when processing a query, but unless your

RE: recursion yes/no?

2023-01-25 Thread David Carvalho via bind-users
It helps a lot!! I think I understand now. Have a great day! Regards David From: Greg Choules Sent: 25 January 2023 10:34 To: David Carvalho Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org Subject: Re: recursion yes/no? Hi David. With "minimal-responses", usually I would set it to "n

Re: recursion yes/no?

2023-01-25 Thread Greg Choules via bind-users
after setting > minimal-responses to no, now I get the usual output when querying. > > For what I understand, there is no downside in maintaining this setting, > right? > > Thank you! > > > > Kind regards. > > David > > > > > > *From:* Greg Choules

RE: recursion yes/no?

2023-01-25 Thread David Carvalho via bind-users
t Sent: 24 January 2023 20:12 To: David Carvalho Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org Subject: Re: recursion yes/no? On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 04:48:34PM -, David Carvalho via bind-users wrote: > Hello. > > I hope someone could help to understand the following. > > I have "my.

RE: recursion yes/no?

2023-01-25 Thread David Carvalho via bind-users
understand, there is no downside in maintaining this setting, right? Thank you! Kind regards. David From: Greg Choules Sent: 24 January 2023 18:12 To: David Carvalho Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org Subject: Re: recursion yes/no? Hi David. "recursion yes;" tells named that it

Re: recursion yes/no?

2023-01-24 Thread Evan Hunt
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 04:48:34PM -, David Carvalho via bind-users wrote: > Hello. > > I hope someone could help to understand the following. > > I have "my.domain.pt" and a master and slave server for the "my" part. I > have been using "recursion yes" in both named.conf, as I want them to b

Re: recursion yes/no?

2023-01-24 Thread Greg Choules via bind-users
Hi David. "recursion yes;" tells named that it can (if it has to) make queries to other places if it needs more information in order to answer a client query. Pure authoritative servers shouldn't need it and should have "recursion no;". So the first question is, do your servers make queries out to

Re: Recursion Question

2021-12-20 Thread John Thurston
Define an explicit forward-zone on the recursive server for private.dns.com In the zone definition, put the addresses of the servers which can answer for private.dns.com. -- Do things because you should, not just because you can. John Thurston907-465-8591 john.thurs...@alaska.gov Departm

Re: Recursion setting for bind9

2021-10-01 Thread Petr Menšík
Hi Sonal, I do not think forwarders specified in zone work as fixed order. It would not work by first contacting 127.0.0.1, if that did not deliver the answer, try 199.165.24.21. Forwarders in bind are configured as a set, not ordered list. It would use whatever just gives faster replies. I am af

Re: Recursion setting for bind9

2021-09-29 Thread Crist Clark
Maybe a little confused here, but BIND won’t try another server if it gets an answer. It will only try another forwarder if the query fails. On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 12:21 AM Sonal Pahuja wrote: > Hi All, > > > > Is there any option to set recursion =1 in named.conf file for the zone. I > just wa

Re: Recursion Issue

2013-03-28 Thread Chris Buxton
On Mar 28, 2013, at 10:51 AM, Manson, John wrote: > http://www.digwebinterface.com/? Is one of the internet sites I use. http://www.digwebinterface.com/?hostnames=test.gopleader.gov&type=A&showcommand=on&colorize=on&stats=on&norecursive=on&useresolver=8.8.4.4&ns=auth&nameservers=

Re: Recursion issue

2013-03-28 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 28.03.13 17:09, Manson, John wrote: Maybe my understanding of how bind works is faulty. I thought bind would do the leg work to get an IP. Especially when it is authoritative for CNAME domain. Even a dig on mercury gives the same 'no IP' result. Sorry for the bother. I got the same result as

RE: Recursion issue

2013-03-28 Thread Manson, John
mailto:cli...@buxtonfamily.us] Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 12:57 PM To: Manson, John Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org Subject: Re: Recursion issue On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:05 AM, Manson, John wrote: > I disagree with your statement about recursion. > What stops an authoritative server from doing recursi

Re: Recursion issue

2013-03-28 Thread Chris Buxton
On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:05 AM, Manson, John wrote: > I disagree with your statement about recursion. > What stops an authoritative server from doing recursion if you do not have > the recursion statement? > I guess the bind default is recursion yes. OK, bad choice of words on my part. I did not mea

Re: Recursion issue

2013-03-28 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 28.03.13 16:05, Manson, John wrote: I disagree with your statement about recursion. What stops an authoritative server from doing recursion if you do not have the recursion statement? I guess the bind default is recursion yes. if your server does not allow recursion, it will still answer

RE: Recursion issue

2013-03-28 Thread Manson, John
, 2013 11:49 AM To: Manson, John Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org Subject: Re: Recursion issue On Mar 28, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Manson, John wrote: > From the internet: > Answer records > > name class typedatatime to live > test.gopleader.govIN CNAME testwww.house.g

RE: Recursion issue

2013-03-28 Thread Manson, John
: test.gopleader@mercury.house.gov: test.gopleader.gov. 300 IN CNAME testwww.house.gov. -Original Message- From: Chris Buxton [mailto:cli...@buxtonfamily.us] Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 11:49 AM To: Manson, John Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org Subject: Re: Recursion issue On Mar 28

Re: Recursion issue

2013-03-28 Thread Chris Buxton
On Mar 28, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Manson, John wrote: > From the internet: > Answer records > > name class typedatatime to live > test.gopleader.govIN CNAME testwww.house.gov > > Testwww from the internet: > Answer records > > name class typedatatime to live > testww

RE: Recursion issue

2013-03-28 Thread Manson, John
:15:00) So the first lookup does not fully resolve due to recursion. Does this help? -Original Message- From: Chris Buxton [mailto:cli...@buxtonfamily.us] Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 11:13 AM To: Manson, John Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org Subject: Re: Recursion issue On Mar 28, 2013,

Re: Recursion issue

2013-03-28 Thread Chris Buxton
On Mar 28, 2013, at 7:56 AM, Manson, John wrote: > My external authoritative dns does not allow recursion. > We have vanity names like speaker.gov. > When we add an entry like: > www.speaker.gov CNAMEwww.house.gov > it fails because of the recursion statement even though the external dns

RE: recursion and forwarding

2012-01-12 Thread Adamiec, Lawrence
2 12:35 > To: bind-users@lists.isc.org > Subject: Re: recursion and forwarding > > On 01/12/2012 06:15 PM, Adamiec, Lawrence wrote: > > > So when does recursion occur, before the query is forwarded or never? I > > thought recursion was supposed to go looking for the answe

Re: recursion and forwarding

2012-01-12 Thread Phil Mayers
On 01/12/2012 06:15 PM, Adamiec, Lawrence wrote: So when does recursion occur, before the query is forwarded or never? I thought recursion was supposed to go looking for the answers. If recursion does not return an answer then does the query get forwarded? "forwarders" IIRC works as follows:

Re: recursion and forwarding

2012-01-12 Thread Kevin Darcy
You're getting caught up in semantics. The forwarding of the query *is* recursive resolution. It's not a separate operation.

Re: Recursion problems

2010-08-29 Thread Chris Buxton
Josh, Did you ever get a response to this? I'm a few weeks behind on my list reading, but I don't see any follow-ups. It looks to me like your server is getting referred to the efollett.com name servers (yours?), but then appears to believe these names are aliases (CNAME records, not A records

Re: recursion

2010-03-11 Thread ic.nssip
ginal Message - From: "Kevin Darcy" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 4:54 PM Subject: Re: recursion On 3/10/2010 4:45 PM, ic.nssip wrote: I've got the idea! So even I have no statement "recursion yes", the server is still recursive as time I dont specify "re

Re: recursion

2010-03-10 Thread Kevin Darcy
On 3/10/2010 4:45 PM, ic.nssip wrote: I've got the idea! So even I have no statement "recursion yes", the server is still recursive as time I dont specify "recursion no;" It is going to make no difference if I'll add "recursion yes;" on options. No difference. Is "localnets" a term I really

Re: recursion

2010-03-10 Thread ic.nssip
I've got the idea! So even I have no statement "recursion yes", the server is still recursive as time I dont specify "recursion no;" It is going to make no difference if I'll add "recursion yes;" on options. Is "localnets" a term I really need to use? Currently I'm using an ACL defined for "ac

Re: recursion

2010-03-10 Thread Alan Clegg
Lightner, Jeff wrote: > Modern being? Actually In the 9.4 CHANGES file I find: --- 9.4.0a4 released --- [...] 2006. [security]Allow-query-cache and allow-recursion now default to the builtin acls "localnets" and "localhost". This is

Re: recursion

2010-03-10 Thread Alan Clegg
Lightner, Jeff wrote: > Modern being? According to CHANGES file: --- 9.5.0a6 released --- 2206. [security] "allow-query-cache" and "allow-recursion" now cross inherit from each other. If allow-query-cache is not set in named.conf then a

RE: recursion

2010-03-10 Thread Lightner, Jeff
Modern being? -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: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 2:25 PM To: bind-users@lists.isc.org Subject: Re: recursion ic.nssip wrote

Re: recursion

2010-03-10 Thread Alan Clegg
ic.nssip wrote: > If there is no option "recursion yes (or no);" specified in named.conf, > is the server still recursive? > Is "recursion" activated by default if option recursion (yes|no) is > missing in named.conf? In modern BIND, "allow-recursion" defaults to: "{ localhost; loc

Re: recursion

2010-03-10 Thread Kevin Darcy
On 3/10/2010 11:37 AM, ic.nssip wrote: If there is no option "recursion yes (or no);" specified in named.conf, is the server still recursive? Is "recursion" activated by default if option recursion (yes|no) is missing in named.conf? Yes, recursion is "activated" by default, but who is or is not

Re: recursion confusion

2010-01-08 Thread David Forrest
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010, Chris Thompson wrote: On Jan 8 2010, Rick Dicaire wrote: Hi folks, whats the difference between recursion no; and allow-recursion {none;}; Not a great deal, but "recursion no;" changes the default for "empty-zones-enable" to "no", while "allow-recursion {none;};" doesn't

Re: recursion confusion

2010-01-08 Thread Chris Thompson
On Jan 8 2010, Rick Dicaire wrote: Hi folks, whats the difference between recursion no; and allow-recursion {none;}; Not a great deal, but "recursion no;" changes the default for "empty-zones-enable" to "no", while "allow-recursion {none;};" doesn't do that. (Probably there are other niggling

Re: recursion on auth-only server

2009-10-06 Thread Chris Adams
Once upon a time, Matus UHLAR - fantomas said: >I don't care if they do recursion themselves, but if anyone asks this server >with RD flag set, the answer will be venemous. You should realize that anybody trying to debug possible DNS issues might issue queries directly to your server with tools

Re: recursion on auth-only server

2009-10-06 Thread Barry Margolin
In article , Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > It's RD (recursion desired) flag and my question is if any nameserver is > known by sending queries with this flag set. > > I don't care if they do recursion themselves, but if anyone asks this server > with RD flag set, the answer will be venemous.

Re: recursion on auth-only server

2009-10-06 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > I have moved authoritative server to new IP address. I have changed the > > DNS name pointing to it so the NS would point to the new IP. > > > > Now I looked at the traffic and it seems that there are ~4 of 1000 > > recursive requests sent to it. > > > > Are th

Re: recursion on auth-only server

2009-10-02 Thread Peter Dambier
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > Hello, > > I have moved authoritative server to new IP address. I have changed the DNS > name pointing to it so the NS would point to the new IP. > > Now I looked at the traffic and it seems that there are ~4 of 1000 recursive > requests sent to it. > > Are there

Re: recursion on auth-only server

2009-09-21 Thread Chris Thompson
On Sep 21 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: I have moved authoritative server to new IP address. I have changed the DNS name pointing to it so the NS would point to the new IP. Now I looked at the traffic and it seems that there are ~4 of 1000 recursive requests sent to it. And do you know

Re: recursion for reverse/in-addr.arpa zones

2008-12-12 Thread Barry Margolin
In article , "Todd Snyder" wrote: > On our slave, there are no specific declarations for the 10.131.10 zone, > or even 10.131, just 10. > > On the server we're slaving off of, there would probably be more, but I > don't know as I'm not in control of that server/servers. Since your server is a

RE: recursion for reverse/in-addr.arpa zones

2008-12-12 Thread Todd Snyder
able to find information about this behaviour in the book(s). Merci! Todd. From: Ben Croswell [mailto:ben.crosw...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 5:15 PM To: Todd Snyder Cc: bind-us...@isc.org Subject: Re: recursion for reverse/in-addr.arpa

Re: recursion for reverse/in-addr.arpa zones

2008-12-11 Thread Ben Croswell
Are there NS records and/or zone forwarding for the 10.131.10.0? If there is the servers will look to the most specfic domain. -- -Ben Croswell On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Todd Snyder wrote: > Good day, > > We are working on an odd issue. I can provide more detail as necessary, > but don