Hi All,
i am trying to get my Debian Lenny Server running with DNS, DHCP, NFS
and CUPS. My DNS- and DHCP-Server is up and running, but it seems that
my DDNS doesn't work. I am using DCHP-Server version 3.1.1-6+lenny and
BIND9.5.1.dfsg.P3-1.
My client is debian Lenny too and it gets an IP address
This is strictly off-topic for bind-users, but if (like us) you are in
the unfortunate position of having many Windows DNS Server instances
stealth slaving your zones, and are planning a wrap around increase
of your SOA serial numbers, all nicely in accordance with RFC 1982
(13 years old, for ${
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 07:16:35AM +1000,
Mark Andrews wrote
a message of 77 lines which said:
> It's a pity registries are not required to verify correct operation
> of the nameservers they are delegating to before accepting the
> delegation.
Some do!
http://www.afnic.fr/outils/zonecheck/_e
I'm currently working on setting up DNSSEC for all our zones. I have a
question regarding keys. Do you use different ZSK and KSKs for each zone? Or
do you use the same keys for all zones? How do you handle the reverse zones
since they can be comprised of many different domain names?
If you
On Sep 29 2009, Paveza, Gary wrote:
I'm currently working on setting up DNSSEC for all our zones. I have a
question regarding keys. Do you use different ZSK and KSKs for each zone?
Or do you use the same keys for all zones?
You can't really use the "same" ZSK and/or KSK for different zones
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, Chris Thompson wrote:
On Sep 29 2009, Paveza, Gary wrote:
I'm currently working on setting up DNSSEC for all our zones. I have a
question regarding keys. Do you use different ZSK and KSKs for each zone?
Or do you use the same keys for all zones?
You can't really use t
Paul Wouters wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, Chris Thompson wrote:
What I would like to see is for more reverse zones to go away, by use
of the scheme I describe in
http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/cet1/prune-reverse-zones
I don't see how moving the reverse into a special forward zone decreases
mana
In message <20090929122845.ga13...@nic.fr>, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 07:16:35AM +1000,
> Mark Andrews wrote
> a message of 77 lines which said:
>
> > It's a pity registries are not required to verify correct operation
> > of the nameservers they are delegating to
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Mark Andrews wrote:
http://www.afnic.fr/outils/zonecheck/_en
The key word is "required". I know some do, I just wish more did.
I for one, welcome our new named-checkzone overlords.
(especially if named-checkzone would fail to OK a zone with NSEC3RSASHA1 keys
and re-use
In message , Paul Wou
ters writes:
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> >> http://www.afnic.fr/outils/zonecheck/_en
> >
> > The key word is "required". I know some do, I just wish more did.
>
> I for one, welcome our new named-checkzone overlords.
>
> (especially if named-checkzone w
How can i check whether or not my DHCP Server tries to update my zone
ifrom my DNS Server ?
regards Markus
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
In message , Chris Thom
pson writes:
> DNSSEC certainly adds to the aggravation of having lots of piddling little
> reverse zones. Some people may just decide not to bother signing reverse
> zones ("reverse lookup results should only be treated as a hint, anyway").
DNSSEC makes no difference to t
12 matches
Mail list logo
