Re: Bind 9.6.1 stops after few hours.

On 07.07.2009 / 11:55:34 -0400, Rob Payne wrote: > > > What do you mean by "stop"? Did the daemon crash, simply not respond > > to queries, or something else? > > I don't know if this is the same as what Laurence is seeing. Testing > 9.6.1 on Solaris 10/sparc, with a local build (THREADS, no ME

RES: Bind 9.6.1 stops after few hours.

Hi Rob, I could not reproduce this behavior on my Linux lab machine using queryperf. As Jinmei pointed this seens to be a Solaris thing. I still could not reproduce the problem I faced on my own production DNS... Thanks for your post! Laurence -Mensagem original- De: Rob Payne [mail

Re: DNSSEC closed environment

Eduardo Júnior wrote: > it's possible configure dnssec only between 2 name servers, first is > the authoritative and second is the recurisve? The authoritative name > server would have zones signed and the recursive will do querys and > validation. Sure, why not? I personally prefer my setup whe

DNS Maintenance

Hi, Can someone tell me how webhosting providers or ISPs do maintenance on their DNSs? I mean, can they take it offline? What is the procedure usually? Thanks, Alans ___ bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/ma

Re: DNS Maintenance

Alans wrote: > Can someone tell me how webhosting providers or ISPs do maintenance on > their DNSs? > > I mean, can they take it offline? What is the procedure usually? You need to define "maintenance". With very few exceptions (none?) I can't think of a reason to take a DNS server off-line to

Re: DNS Maintenance

What u mean by Offline ..! On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Alan Clegg wrote: > Alans wrote: > > > Can someone tell me how webhosting providers or ISPs do maintenance on > > their DNSs? > > > > I mean, can they take it offline? What is the procedure usually? > > You need to define "maintenance".

Re: DNS Maintenance

On 08/07/09 15:46, Alans wrote: Hi, Can someone tell me how webhosting providers or ISPs do maintenance on their DNSs? I mean, can they take it offline? What is the procedure usually? Hi You can use a load balancer in front of your DNS servers, and remove the host from the pool when mainten

Re: DNS Maintenance

I have been thinking of this same issue lately when I had to move a dns service from one host to another to re-build the OS. I use virtual IPs on the host making it relatively easy to move the service around. But as I use Solaris 10 as the platform I am thinking that Zones would be a winner

bind 9.6.1 under perform after running for a couple of hours

Hi, After a couple of hours, performance of bind 9.6.1 suddenly drops. While the server remains responsive, the response time increases, the rate of the failed queries increases, and CPU/load average usage increases. Restarting named solves the problem. I cannot find anything useful in the

namespace verification

Good day all, I am looking at making some sweeping changes to some zone files, cleaning up NS records primarily. As I'm pondering the impact of this, I got to thinking about how to validate every single record in my namespace, and therefore the entirety of my change. What I'm thinking of is a sc

Re: namespace verification

On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 14:23:36 -0400, "Todd Snyder" wrote: > Good day all, > > I am looking at making some sweeping changes to some zone files, > cleaning up NS records primarily. As I'm pondering the impact of this, > I got to thinking about how to validate every single record in my > namespace,

DNSKEY dynamic update: unexpected change 9.6.0-P1 -> 9.6.1

Upgrading from 9.6.0-P1 to 9.6.1 on my master server unexpectedly changed DNSKEY dynamic update behavior. My tools to secure zones rely on insertion of DNSKEY records via dynamic update. This stopped working when I upgraded to 9.6.1. The culprit seems to be: *** bind-9.6.0-P1/bin/named/update.c

Re: rDNS Round-Robin

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Kevin Darcy wrote: > Bryan Irvine wrote: >> >> Other than to really annoy me;  is there a valid reason for rr rDNS? >> >> > > Once upon a time, BIND specifically *disabled* round-robin behavior for > non-address (A/) record types. PTR RRsets, among other types, w

Re: DNSKEY dynamic update: unexpected change 9.6.0-P1 -> 9.6.1

> Is there any reason these flags should not be set by default? Yes, there is: the code as written uses the NSEC3PARAM record in a way that, debatably, could be an RFC violation. We're planning to correct this, and turn the feature on by default in 9.7.0. (I can't promise, but it may make it in

Re: bind 9.6.1 under perform after running for a couple of hours

Hello, A few of the default settings changed from 9.4.x to 9.6.x The appropriate README files, change logs, and BIND ARM will provide details about them. Below are some options and logging configurations you may want to investigate. Ye Ole Disclaimer: Please be sure to understand what these do a

Re: DNSKEY dynamic update: unexpected change 9.6.0-P1 -> 9.6.1

On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 09:20:29PM +, Evan Hunt wrote: > > Is there any reason these flags should not be set by default? > > Yes, there is: the code as written uses the NSEC3PARAM record in a > way that, debatably, could be an RFC violation. We're planning to > correct this, and turn the fea

Re: rDNS Round-Robin

In message <53d706300907081412r191946eeo5c9a66657bf8e...@mail.gmail.com>, Bryan Irvine writes: > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Kevin Darcy wrote: > > Bryan Irvine wrote: > >> > >> Other than to really annoy me; =A0is there a valid reason for rr rDNS? > >> > >> > > > > Once upon a time, BIND spe