Hi All,
I'm using BIND 9.3.3rc2, I got the log below. again and again
Feb 5 14:24:27 ns01 named[7791]: lame server resolving 'researchcap.com'
(in 'researchcap.com'?): 209.115.142.1#53
Feb 5 14:24:27 ns01 named[7791]: lame server resolving 'conztract.com' (in
'conztract.com'?): 67.212.177.42#53
On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 08:18:35 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
> In message <19306.52059.975062.462...@hadron.switch.ch>, Alexander Gall
> writes:
>>
>> All of those are NSEC3-agnostic. They should not do any DNSSEC
>> processing for the ch zone, because they don't support algorithm #7.
> Yes and no.
In article ,
Mark Andrews wrote:
> Recent version of named-checkconf have a -p (print) option which
> will emit named.conf, sans comments, in a consistent style which
> will then be easy to post process.
Shame about the "sans comments" - easy comprehension or easy management
- take your pick.
bsfin...@anl.gov wrote:
> On a mail machine I am running a cache-only DNS - BIND 9.6.1-P3.
> When I dump the cache I see two lines:
>
> ; answer
> brainpower-austria.at. 6622MX 5 mx1.bon.at.
>
> I then enter
>
> ./rndc flushname brainpower-austria.at
>
> But when I then
I find this important enough to forward on to bind-users.
Please not the importance of trust anchor management.
AlanC
--- Begin Message ---
[Apologies for duplicates]
Dear Colleagues,
We have discovered that recent versions of the Fedora Linux distribution
are shipping with a package called "dn
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 06:22:26AM -0800, Alan Clegg wrote:
> I find this important enough to forward on to bind-users.
>
> Please not the importance of trust anchor management.
We (= me and Paul Wouters) are working on dnssec-conf update. Sorry
for troubles.
Regards, Adam
> Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2
Nameservers malfunction and networks in front of them malfunction.
When this happens to the secondary,
then you suffer what you are reporting. If you have only one
nameserver, then such a malfunction can
leave you dead in the water.
I've run into the issue of updates to secondaries stopping
In message <20100205143439.ga15...@evileye.atkac.englab.brq.redhat.com>, Adam T
kac writes:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 06:22:26AM -0800, Alan Clegg wrote:
> > I find this important enough to forward on to bind-users.
> >
> > Please not the importance of trust anchor management.
>
> We (= me and P
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010, Mark Andrews wrote:
We (= me and Paul Wouters) are working on dnssec-conf update. Sorry
for troubles.
The better thing would be a a script to fetch the current keys
nightly, perform a sanity check, then update or inform the administator
and let them update the keys after i
Paul Wouters wrote:
> With the current success of the DLV, and the root zone deployment half
> a year away, it is not really required anymore. I think it is much better
> to get rid of all trust anchors apart from the ISC DLV key.
Do remember, however, that the DLV keys also roll, so this does ne
Hello I wanted to ask how could be possible in some way
to have 2 or more multi master name servers authoritative for one domain,
instead of the classical master slave model.
thank you
Rick
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://
Version - bind 9.5.1 on CentOS 5.x. Is there a way to log either the
IP of clients requesting lookups of a particular domain?
In other words, I'd like to know the IP of clients trying to resolve
app01.foocompany.net (for example.)
There is probably a logging option but I'm not sure what it might
On 2/5/2010 3:16 PM, Keith Christian wrote:
> Version - bind 9.5.1 on CentOS 5.x. Is there a way to log either the
> IP of clients requesting lookups of a particular domain?
>
> In other words, I'd like to know the IP of clients trying to resolve
> app01.foocompany.net (for example.)
>
> There i
On 2/5/2010 2:41 PM, fddi wrote:
> Hello I wanted to ask how could be possible in some way
> to have 2 or more multi master name servers authoritative for one domain,
> instead of the classical master slave model.
Yes.
--
Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
Doug Barton wrote:
On 2/5/2010 2:41 PM, fddi wrote:
Hello I wanted to ask how could be possible in some way
to have 2 or more multi master name servers authoritative for one domain,
instead of the classical master slave model.
Yes.
so should I use somthing like rsync or cfengine ?
In article ,
fddi wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote:
> > On 2/5/2010 2:41 PM, fddi wrote:
> >
> >> Hello I wanted to ask how could be possible in some way
> >> to have 2 or more multi master name servers authoritative for one domain,
> >> instead of the classical master slave model.
> >>
> >
>
Cricket Liu documents some stuff around this in section 8.2 of "O'Reilly
DNS and BIND" - 5th edition. The info does not exist in 3rd edition. (I
happen to have access to both)
Not enough info to justify buying the book, but might help you if you're
not a UNIX guru, so visit the library or make not
On Friday 05 February 2010 17:41, fddi wrote:
> Hello I wanted to ask how could be possible in some way
> to have 2 or more multi master name servers authoritative for one domain,
> instead of the classical master slave model.
Simple thing to do. I have a test lab here that I did this in a fe
While that particular info might not justify buying the book, there is so much
other info in it that does...
Everyone who isn't a BIND expert and who touches a BIND nameserver should own a
copy: -)
W
Please excuse top posting, my phone is dumb and has issues doing inline
comments.
"Taylor, G
On Friday 05 February 2010 23:06, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Everyone who isn't a BIND expert and who touches a BIND nameserver should
> own a copy: -)
Could not agree with you more on this point.
--
Regards
Robert
Linux User #296285
http://counter.li.org
___
20 matches
Mail list logo
