Hi,
Sorry in advance for my very bad english!
I have a question (problem?) with my Bind configuration.
My Bind server is on a Debian Lenny.
I'm on a local network with domainname "home.fr"
I wish to create shortcut name to access an internet application.
Example:
In my browser, if I wri
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 02:40:07PM +0200,
Cyril Gaudin - Rodacom wrote
a message of 139 lines which said:
> Sorry in advance for my very bad english!
There is a français mailing list: dns...@cru.fr
> And why there's a second request without the domain name?
Wild guess: the browser uses a pr
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Cyril Gaudin - Rodacom wrote:
> But in my browser, if I write http://myapplication/, the dns request
> failed.
>
> Here is the bind log (192.168.6.28 is my computer):
>
> queries: client 192.168.6.28#36728: query: myapplication.home.fr IN A +
> queries: client 127.0.0.1#5688
Le Mon, 5 Oct 2009 14:42:47 +0100,
Stephane Bortzmeyer a écrit :
> Wild guess: the browser uses a proxy, which runs on 192.168.6.1. The
> proxy is doing name resolution (and uses 127.0.0.1, which is in the
> resolv.conf of its machine).
>
Indeed, there is a transparent squid proxy! Maybe squid
I take it this is not possible using update-policy?
_
Nicholas Miller, ITS, University of Colorado at Boulder
On Sep 30, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Nicholas F Miller wrote:
Is it possible to restrict user machines to only be able to update
thei
Not to the list but just to you.
I could imagine a system having multiple views defined with only one view
that allows DDNS updates. The other views would be "read-only". This
wouldn't be pretty, but ...
In this one view that allows DDNS, you wouldn't be restricted to ONLY "A"
records. User
Hi,
In the following example, the authoritive server for
zone .xx has configured the delegations of the zones example.xx
and otherexample.xx:
example.xx NS ns1.example.xx
example.xx NS ns2.example.xx
ns1.example.xx A 11.22.33.44
ns2.example.xx A 11.22.33.55
otherexample.xx NS ns3.example
I would imagine the answer will be that they aren't required but would be
helpful.
Since the parent .xx is delegating to the second-level domains, if you do
glue for all four DNS servers you are preventing a remote DNS server from
having to go to the servers for example.xx to get the A records for
Thanks for the answer Ben, I agree.
But the problem is if the administrator of zone example.xx
decides to change the ip address of the ns3.example.xx and
ns4.example.xx, the glue records will be wrong.
--
Sergio R.
Ben Croswell escribió:
> I would imagine the answer will be that they aren't requi
Sergio Ramirez wrote:
> Thanks for the answer Ben, I agree.
> But the problem is if the administrator of zone example.xx
> decides to change the ip address of the ns3.example.xx and
> ns4.example.xx, the glue records will be wrong.
That's why is usually a good idea to use nameservers under the do
In message <1254502519.14277.16.ca...@dv6d4k1-u>, "Nicholas Wheeler" writes:
> On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 13:22 +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > You really want to work out what is being blocked, EDNS?, responses
> > bigger that 512 bytes? DNSSEC? fragmented responses? With a clean
> > path all of these
In message , Sergio Ramirez writes:
> Hi,
>
>In the following example, the authoritive server for
> zone .xx has configured the delegations of the zones example.xx
> and otherexample.xx:
>
> example.xx NS ns1.example.xx
> example.xx NS ns2.example.xx
> ns1.example.xx A 11.22.33.44
> ns2
12 matches
Mail list logo
