Hello bind gurus!
I need to change only one record in zone (not deligated to my server,
can't transfer it too)
RECORD.DOMAIN.NET IN A 192.168.1.1
to
RECORD.DOMAIN.NET IN CNAME RECORD.DOMAIN.ORG
Only one record! Is this possible via bind?
___
bind-us
On 14.01.10 12:27, Dmitry Rybin wrote:
> Hello bind gurus!
>
> I need to change only one record in zone (not deligated to my server,
> can't transfer it too)
>
> RECORD.DOMAIN.NET IN A 192.168.1.1
> to
> RECORD.DOMAIN.NET IN CNAME RECORD.DOMAIN.ORG
>
> Only one record! Is this possible via bind?
My resolver only does lookups for the first two domains specified by the search
directive in the /etc/resolv.conf file. For example, if I do a lookup of
server1.eur.domain2.mil and domain2.mil is the second domain specified by the
search directive, the query works. However, if domain2.mil is t
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I need to change only one record in zone (not deligated to my server,
can't transfer it too)
RECORD.DOMAIN.NET IN A 192.168.1.1
to
RECORD.DOMAIN.NET IN CNAME RECORD.DOMAIN.ORG
Only one record! Is this possible via bind?
Not if ht domain is not yours.
You mus
>>> I need to change only one record in zone (not deligated to my server,
>>> can't transfer it too)
>>>
>>> RECORD.DOMAIN.NET IN A 192.168.1.1
>>> to
>>> RECORD.DOMAIN.NET IN CNAME RECORD.DOMAIN.ORG
>>>
>>> Only one record! Is this possible via bind?
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> Not if ht
Jason Fesler wrote:
On Jan 11, 2010, at 9:39 AM, Kaya Saman wrote:
Hi, since I got no responses for this question could I rephrase it to
asking if Bind will do a zone transfer over public internet if the
servers have private IP addresses and are behind NAT with static port
definitions?
On Jan 14, 2010, at 5:47 AM, Andrew Swartzbaugh wrote:
> My resolver only does lookups for the first two domains specified by the
> search directive in the /etc/resolv.conf file. For example, if I do a lookup
> of server1.eur.domain2.mil and domain2.mil is the second domain specified by
> the
Chris,
Yes, you are correct. I took the user's word for it and then used nslookup to
do my troubleshooting and was misled by the output.
There is no problem with the search directive. Thank you for your quick
response.
Thanks,
Andy
--- On Thu, 1/14/10, Chris Buxton wrote:
> From: Chris B
Hello,
We have been facing this problem, sometime the original server was down, but
Bind didn't know it, and still answered clients with the dead IP.
Or sometime an external domain name has two or more IPs, accessing to part of
them is fast, but accessing to another part is slow.
So, do you thi
I do not see any activity in the thread... is everyone on holidays?
Regards
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Tech W. wrote:
> So, do you think is there a resolving way for Bind which can
> implement the features:
>
> 1. check the popular domains' original IPs (like google's, yahoo's,
> aol's etc), and exclude the dead IPs from its cache.
> 2. for the popular domains, testing the access speed to each of
On Jan 14, 2010, at 3:00 AM, Kaya Saman wrote:
> Thanks Jason! Will this work as Bind will examine the packet and will
> have a different IP in the sendto: part
If your firewall/NAT is forwarding a public address to your private internal
address, it will rewrite the packets in order to do
On Dec 15 2009, Evan Hunt wrote:
(Doug Barton wrote)
BIND 9.6.2 is in the "b1" phase atm, which means that there is plenty
of time to get SHA2 in there and get the release out before a signed
root goes live. I encourage the folks at ISC to do so, and if you
agree I encourage you to make your vo
The highest incentive, and the optimal strategy, is for content *owners*
to manage this, not *consumers*.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=content+distribution+network
- Kevin
Tech W. wrote:
Hello,
We have been facing this problem, sometime the original server was down, but
Bind didn't know it, and sti
> >We hear you. Expect a decision in the next few days.
>
> So, has the decision been made?
>
> [I am tentatively planning on going to 9.7 in production round about Easter,
> in good time for the RSASHA256-signed root zone in July, but it would be
> nice to have a fall-back option.]
I'm sorry,
Jason Fesler wrote:
On Jan 14, 2010, at 3:00 AM, Kaya Saman wrote:
Thanks Jason! Will this work as Bind will examine the packet and will
have a different IP in the sendto: part
If your firewall/NAT is forwarding a public address to your private internal
address, it will rewrite t
On 1/14/2010 8:11 AM, Evan Hunt wrote:
>>> We hear you. Expect a decision in the next few days.
>>
>> So, has the decision been made?
>>
>> [I am tentatively planning on going to 9.7 in production round about Easter,
>> in good time for the RSASHA256-signed root zone in July, but it would be
>> ni
And I right in thinking that, on a slave, I can have multiple masters
designated for a particular zone? I just have to make sure that the slave
that is pretending to be the master allows transfers, right?
All but two of the slaves are BIND, the other two are Evil Empire servers.
Still no pro
On Jan 14, 2010, at 5:04 PM, Peter Laws wrote:
> And I right in thinking that, on a slave, I can have multiple masters
> designated for a particular zone? I just have to make sure that the slave
> that is pretending to be the master allows transfers, right?
Don't forget about the notify mechan
- Original Message
> From: Kevin Darcy
> To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> Sent: Thu, 14 January, 2010 11:42:32 PM
> Subject: Re: a question on bind cache
>
> The highest incentive, and the optimal strategy, is for content *owners*
> to manage this, not *consumers*.
>
> http://lmgtfy.
On Jan 14, 2010, at 9:53 PM, Tech W. wrote:
> - Original Message
>> From: Kevin Darcy
>> To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
>> Sent: Thu, 14 January, 2010 11:42:32 PM
>> Subject: Re: a question on bind cache
>>
>> The highest incentive, and the optimal strategy, is for content *owners*
>> to
>> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=content+distribution+network
> Thanks, I know something about CDN.
> But I also want to know if it's possible to let DNS handle this?
BIND itself does not "do" this.
You could monitor your services and then use dynamic DNS to change
resource records based on the results,
- Original Message
> From: Alan Clegg
> To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> Sent: Fri, 15 January, 2010 11:37:58 AM
> Subject: Re: a question on bind cache
>
> You could monitor your services and then use dynamic DNS to change
> resource records based on the results, but it's not the bes
there is no reason we should not do this with DNS, but bind does not provide
those kind function.
you could find another dns solution for what you want to do, like F5.
F5 provides a part of what you want do. like giving closest ip address of
server where you query domains. but bind does not.
20
24 matches
Mail list logo
