On 02/07/2016 04:12 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Warn SOA MNAME entry WARNING: SOA MNAME
(tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net) is not listed as a primary nameserver at
your parent nameserver!
I know that this is a late reply, but I just ran across something that
relates to this:
Per section 6.8
On 02/07/2016 05:54 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
why?
(I believe I answered your question in the subsequent paragraph. If not
let me know and I'll try again.)
that's not a reason for not list one of them as SOA
None of the slaves are the SOA. (Further, I'm not aware of them having
been con
Am 08.02.2016 um 01:00 schrieb Grant Taylor:
On 02/07/2016 04:12 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
define OK
Will it cause any problems if the slave server is not listed as an NS?
no
for internal use NS records don't matter at all because the
only thing which matters is that the machines listed i
Am 08.02.2016 um 01:35 schrieb Grant Taylor:
On 02/07/2016 04:55 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
.local doesn't have servers.
Um
Please forgive me while I look at many Small Business Server / poorly
configured networks.
That being said, I'll give you that it's not an official TLD. (Last I
loo
On 02/07/2016 04:55 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
This proves robustness in the presence of link failures.
Faster than ttl expiry of local zone changes (provided that notify
messages are sent).
I presume you are referring to the slave zone expiration timer, not
normal record TTLs.
No, I mean normal
On 02/07/2016 04:12 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
define OK
Will it cause any problems if the slave server is not listed as an NS?
for internal use NS records don't matter at all because the
only thing which matters is that the machines listed in /etc/resolv.conf
respond correctly
I think I unde
In message <56b7cdfb.5070...@tnetconsulting.net>, Grant Taylor writes:
> I know that this is an older thread, but I've been holding onto it for a
> while with the intent of asking a related question.
>
> On 08/10/2015 12:12 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > Authoritative servers (listed in NS records) s
Am 08.02.2016 um 00:06 schrieb Grant Taylor:
Does being a slave for a zone imply that a server is also listed as an
NS? Or is it considered "okay" for a server to slave a zone without
publishing that it does so?
define OK - for internal use NS records don't matter at all because the
only th
I know that this is an older thread, but I've been holding onto it for a
while with the intent of asking a related question.
On 08/10/2015 12:12 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Authoritative servers (listed in NS records) shouldn't be recursive.
I'm taking this to mean servers that have zones (proper
> On Jan 29, 2016, at 3:58 PM, Darcy Kevin (FCA)
> wrote:
>
> Data obtained from the recursive function will never outrank authoritative
> data of a master or a slave.
Kevin,
That's true, but authoritative servers also sometimes serve up referrals,
sometimes including glue records. This data
Services
> mathew@nau.edu
> (928) 523-2960
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: on behalf of Mark Andrews
>
> Date: Monday, August 10, 2015 at 11:12 AM
> To: Gary Carr
> Cc: "bind-us...@isc.org"
> Subject: Re: sepa
y, January 29, 2016 5:56 PM
To: Mark Andrews
Cc: bind-us...@isc.org
Subject: Re: separation of authoritative and recursive functions on internal
networks
Howdy Mark,
Can you please clarify the best practice for this?
> Recursive servers (honouring RD=1) however can be authoritative for
age-
From: on behalf of Mark Andrews
Date: Monday, August 10, 2015 at 11:12 AM
To: Gary Carr
Cc: "bind-us...@isc.org"
Subject: Re: separation of authoritative and recursive functions on internal
networks
>
>Authoritative servers (listed in NS records) shouldn't be re
On 2015-08-10 13:12, Mark Andrews wrote:
Authoritative servers (listed in NS records) shouldn't be recursive.
This prevents leakage of cache data. This provide consistent
answers. The server also doesn't have to decide what type of answer
to give (recursive vs authoritative). Glue doesn't ge
Authoritative servers (listed in NS records) shouldn't be recursive.
This prevents leakage of cache data. This provide consistent
answers. The server also doesn't have to decide what type of answer
to give (recursive vs authoritative). Glue doesn't get overridden
by answers, etc.
Recurive serv
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Gary Carr wrote:
>
> Overall, is breaking this function out - internally - really worth it?
>
I can offer a personal testimonial on the management aspects of this:
A couple of years back, we made the switch from combined
authoritative/recursive servers to recursi
Darcy Kevin (FCA) wrote:
> "Separate authoritative and recursive functions" is really a simplistic
> approach to a complex challenge. I think a better approach is to make
> both the published-authoritative function and the recursive-resolution
> functions robust enough *in*and*of*themselves* so t
"Separate authoritative and recursive functions" is really a simplistic
approach to a complex challenge. I think a better approach is to make both the
published-authoritative function and the recursive-resolution functions robust
enough *in*and*of*themselves* so that there is no value to an atta
Am 05.08.2015 um 16:18 schrieb Gary Carr:
> Hello,
>
> I understand the importance of separating authoritative and recursive
> functions on public facing systems. How crucial is it on internal
> systems?
>
> My clients today resolve against internal servers that do recursion
> and also hold autho
19 matches
Mail list logo
