In article ,
"Paul Krash" wrote:
> Morning!
>
> I have been struggling with getting two internal views to work on three
> BIND servers running on Ubuntu Linux 8.04.2 x64
> ( kernel 2.6.24-23-server ) for two straight working days
> (OK, I have other projects too. :-)
>
> Scope: present differ
All,
thanks so much for your help in understanding match-clients in the view
statement for zones.
For historical purposes (and future searchers) this statement works:
match clients { !10.x.5.0/24; 10.x.0.0/16; }
doesn't serve .5, but serves everything else.
Thank you Mr. Clegg (where do I s
Alan Clegg wrote:
Kevin Darcy wrote:
Views are matched in order, so "!10.x.5.0/24;" is redundant --
anything in that range would have been matched by the previous view.
But, but by explicitly putting it there, the ordering of the views is
no-longer important. "Better safe than sorry".
If I
Kevin Darcy wrote:
Views are matched in order, so "!10.x.5.0/24;" is redundant -- anything
in that range would have been matched by the previous view.
But, but by explicitly putting it there, the ordering of the views is
no-longer important. "Better safe than sorry".
AlanC
Krash, Paul wrote:
Kevin Darcy asked:
Confused. Looks like the clients are matching the
correct view, but "fckd.net" is not defined in either view,
so what exactly was the point of having views? fckd.net names are
going to get resolved the same regardless.
I attempted to obfuscate ou
Kevin Darcy asked:
>Confused. Looks like the clients are matching the
>correct view, but "fckd.net" is not defined in either view,
> so what exactly was the point of having views? fckd.net names are
>going to get resolved the same regardless.
I attempted to obfuscate our internal domain name, Mr
Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
>
> Do you have anything to match here? By default, match-clients and
> match-destinations default to matching all addresses (even not
> "internal"). So when you reversed, the other view (dot5) would never
> match and wouldn't work.
>
Hey Mr. Reed!
Would this statement be e
Confused. Looks like the clients are matching the correct view, but
"fckd.net" is not defined in either view, so what exactly was the point
of having views? fckd.net names are going to get resolved the same
regardless.
- Kevin
Paul Krash wrote:
Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
It may be useful for you
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009, Paul Krash wrote:
> > view internal {
> >
> > zone "eng.exegy.net" {
Do you have anything to match here? By default, match-clients and
match-destinations default to matching all addresses (even not
"internal"). So when you reversed, the other view (dot5) would never
Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
It may be useful for you to show us what you tried (configurations and
that it is restarted), how you tested, and any network traces and log
files showing that it is not working.
All, the 'dot5' view works great. The 'internal' view does not serve.
If I reverse the view or
I you control all of the resolvers in this scenario, and the clients
aren't doing their own caching-and-reordering-of-responses, you might
consider using sortlists and round-robins instead of views. That would
get you out of having to maintain the same zones in parallel.
Note that if the clien
Agreed. Will do. As time permits today. Thank you for your help!
Paul Krash from mobile +01.314.283.4942
- Original Message -
From: Jeremy C. Reed
To: Krash, Paul
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Sent: Mon Nov 02 09:09:50 2009
Subject: Re: multiple internal views not working
It may be
It may be useful for you to show us what you tried (configurations and
that it is restarted), how you tested, and any network traces and log
files showing that it is not working.
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org
Morning!
I have been struggling with getting two internal views to work on three
BIND servers running on Ubuntu Linux 8.04.2 x64
( kernel 2.6.24-23-server ) for two straight working days
(OK, I have other projects too. :-)
Scope: present different CNAMES and A records to one subnet
(10.x.D.0/
14 matches
Mail list logo
