On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 08:28:34PM -0500,
Dan Letkeman wrote
a message of 11 lines which said:
> Are there any issues with have domains like "location.domain.com"
No.
The limits are in RFC 1034, section 3.1. Each label is 63 characters
maximum and the total length is 255 characters maximum.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 01:14:43PM -0700,
Scott Haneda wrote
a message of 38 lines which said:
> I have been using the below command to determine if a domain is
> registered.
Bad idea. A domain can be registered and not published in the DNS (for
instance, in .COM, because it is on hold, i
On Jun 30 2009, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 08:28:34PM -0500,
Dan Letkeman wrote
a message of 11 lines which said:
Are there any issues with have domains like "location.domain.com"
No.
The limits are in RFC 1034, section 3.1. Each label is 63 characters
maximum and
Hi list,
I'm currently developing a "management application" that will run on each of
our nameservers
and take care of domain creation, deletion and updates. Sort of "remote
controlling" Bind via
commands entered in a database. My setup is one master and three slaves, all
running windows
(20
Hi,
I want to create a set of keys using dnssec-keygen.
I wonder if it's possible to create one KSK key and a set of ZSK's
and then to sign the ZSK set with the active KSK.
Finally what I want is to invoke to dnssec-signzone without using
explicitly the KSK.
- is there another way to proceed?
-
Hi,
Since we are one of the leading ISP and Domain service provider in the KSA,,
in our DNS we have about 1000 domains are hosted, Now actually my concern is
regarding the DNSSEC deployment,
Since I went through with several articles, stating that it is not that
much needed for the small
> I want to create a set of keys using dnssec-keygen.
> I wonder if it's possible to create one KSK key and a set of ZSK's
> and then to sign the ZSK set with the active KSK.
I'm not sure why you need a "set of" ZSK's. One should be enough unless
you're using multiple signing algorithms.
> Final
On Jun 29, 2009, at 6:57 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Though I am not understanding the versions, you were using 9.3.6
and I
am using
DiG 9.6.0-P1-RedHat-9.6.0-2.P1
Since I am more current than you, I would estimate that the one bug
is
fixed if it is in your version, of course, that is not the
Hi, this is my first post here and I have quite an interesting problem at that!
I have migrated my DNS service from Debian Etch Linux to Sun Solaris 9 running
the Blastwave version of Bind9.
This is a bit hard to explain but basically as default DNS setup in Debian, it
installs root servers in
The first view matched is the one which is selected.
External clients are matching the "external" view, but they are not
allowed to recurse. Therefore they can only see the root zone and/or
whatever authoritative zones you've defined in that "include" file.
Note that the "all" view is *never*
Hmm many thanks Kevin for that!
What I am trying to establish is something more like an ISP DNS server set, of
course they would probably be doing exactly what you suggested:
"If you want to allow a *limited* set of clients on the other side of
your NAT to query Internet names, then add t
11 matches
Mail list logo
