On 02/22/11 01:41, Eivind Olsen wrote:
> Hello. I've recently put into production a new recursive nameserver, and
> decided to take a look in the logfiles (the old servers didn't have
> logging enabled so I can't really compare the current logs with whatever
> the old ones would have been).
> I und
9.7.2-P3-debug3
Description: Binary data
360.cn-20110222.pcap
Description: Binary data
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
* Drunkard Zhang:
> The upstream DNS server 211.161.192.1 did responsed correctly, by
> analysis via tcpdump. But why bind didn't use THE RESPONSE, but
> resolves again from root-servers.
Unfortunately, the information provided by 211.161.192.1 must be
discarded because that is server is not aut
2011/2/22 Florian Weimer :
> * Drunkard Zhang:
>
>> The upstream DNS server 211.161.192.1 did responsed correctly, by
>> analysis via tcpdump. But why bind didn't use THE RESPONSE, but
>> resolves again from root-servers.
>
> Unfortunately, the information provided by 211.161.192.1 must be
> disca
* Drunkard Zhang:
> 2011/2/22 Florian Weimer :
>> * Drunkard Zhang:
>>
>>> The upstream DNS server 211.161.192.1 did responsed correctly, by
>>> analysis via tcpdump. But why bind didn't use THE RESPONSE, but
>>> resolves again from root-servers.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the information provided by 2
The upstream DNS server 211.161.192.1 did responsed correctly, by
analysis via tcpdump. But why bind didn't use THE RESPONSE, but
resolves again from root-servers.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, the information provided by 211.161.192.1 must be
>>> discarded because that is server is not au
Dear all,
In the scope of the IPV6 deployment, I have been asked if oiyr DNS servers are
IPV6 compliant.
We are now upgrading all our servers to bind-9.6-ESV-R3.
- Can anybody give some feedback on the IPV6 compliancy?
IS bind-9.6-ESV-R3 totally compliant with IPV6?
Thanks in advance to
In message , hugo hugoo writes:
> Dear all,
>
> In the scope of the IPV6 deployment, I have been asked if oiyr DNS server
> s are IPV6 compliant.
> We are now upgrading all our servers to bind-9.6-ESV-R3.
>
> - Can anybody give some feedback on the IPV6 compliancy?
>IS bind-9.6-ESV-R3 tota
* Drunkard Zhang:
> My capture command: tcpdump -s 0 -nnnvvv -w 360.cn-`date +%Y%m%d`.pcap
> udp port 53
>
> 17:59:36 ~ $ dig +nocmd speedtest.360.cn @211.161.192.1 +multiline
> +noall +answer
> speedtest.360.cn. 215 IN CNAME speedtest.360.cn.cloudcdn.net.
> speedtest.360.cn.cloudcdn.net. 325
Dnia 2011-02-22 22:16 Mark Andrews napisał(a):
>In message , hugo hugoo writes:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> In the scope of the IPV6 deployment, I have been asked if oiyr DNS server
>> s are IPV6 compliant.
>> We are now upgrading all our servers to bind-9.6-ESV-R3.
>>
>> - Can anybody give some feedb
Hello,
Given I have these MX records:
example.com.3600IN MX 10 m1.example.com.
example.com.3600IN MX 10 m2.example.com.
example.com.3600IN MX 20 m3.example.com.
My question is, when m1.example.com is failed to communicate with
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 08:59:51 +0100, "Torinthiel"
wrote:
> Hmm, looks to me as the box listed as client sends some strange notify
> messages. Notify normally should contain SOA, so that receiving NS can
> tell if it has outdated zone or no. These don't. What (regarding DNS of
> course) is on those
2011/2/22 Florian Weimer :
> * Drunkard Zhang:
>
>> My capture command: tcpdump -s 0 -nnnvvv -w 360.cn-`date +%Y%m%d`.pcap
>> udp port 53
>>
>> 17:59:36 ~ $ dig +nocmd speedtest.360.cn @211.161.192.1 +multiline
>> +noall +answer
>> speedtest.360.cn. 215 IN CNAME speedtest.360.cn.cloudcdn.net.
>
Hello,
I don't think BIND is the problem, here.
Are the network and attached devices (routers/firewalls/switches/ISP) IPv6
ready ?
That might prove to be harder.
(at least : here in Belgium, our ISP's, for commercial connections are not
in a hurry to offer IPv6 connectivity)
Kind rega
Dnia 2011-02-22 20:29 Terry. napisał(a):
>Hello,
>
>Given I have these MX records:
>
>example.com.3600IN MX 10 m1.example.com.
>example.com.3600IN MX 10 m2.example.com.
>example.com.3600IN MX 20 m3.example.com.
>
>
>My question
Dnia 2011-02-22 13:29 Eivind Olsen napisał(a):
>On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 08:59:51 +0100, "Torinthiel"
>wrote:
>> Hmm, looks to me as the box listed as client sends some strange notify
>> messages. Notify normally should contain SOA, so that receiving NS can
>> tell if it has outdated zone or no. Thes
On 22.02.11 20:29, Terry. wrote:
> Given I have these MX records:
>
> example.com.3600IN MX 10 m1.example.com.
> example.com.3600IN MX 10 m2.example.com.
> example.com.3600IN MX 20 m3.example.com.
>
>
> My question is, when m1.
Mark,
Are these bugs (2784 and 1804) fixed by BIND 9.6.1-P3? My problem is that I
can not get A records of NSs (like vwall4a.nyc.gov) of nyc.gov from
b.gov-servers.net by BIND 9.6.1-P3 but with no problem with older BINDs like
9.3. I don't know if the problem is with the authoritative namese
Running 9.6.1-P1 on CentOS 5 with 8 CPU cores. We're anycasting our DNS
service
address. We observe the UDP Recv-Q get as high as 109540 and 2-4 second
response times. The simplest fix is to simply restart the bind process. When
the response time is slow on the DNS service address, I can do
Internet Systems Consortium Security
Advisory
Title: Server Lockup Upon IXFR or DDNS Update Combined with High Query Rate
(http://www.isc.org/software/bind/advisories/cve-2011-0414)
CVE-2011-0414
VU#559980
CVSS: 7.1 (AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:C)
for more inf
On 2/22/2011 7:29 AM, Terry. wrote:
Hello,
Given I have these MX records:
example.com.3600IN MX 10 m1.example.com.
example.com.3600IN MX 10 m2.example.com.
example.com.3600IN MX 20 m3.example.com.
My question is, when m1.exa
In message <0539E64AD2B54AD2804C2394F923800B@se179>, "Shaoquan Lin" writes:
> Mark,
>
> Are these bugs (2784 and 1804) fixed by BIND 9.6.1-P3? My problem is that I
> can not get A records of NSs (like vwall4a.nyc.gov) of nyc.gov from
> b.gov-servers.net by BIND 9.6.1-P3 but with no problem with
Sorry for the top post but there is no data yet at
http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2011-0414. I'll assume
that is coming along. I have 9.7.3 ready for relase on Solaris 8 and 9 and
10 however I wanted to refer to the various security info sites.
Do you know if the folks at nis
Hi Dennis,
Thank you for getting 9.7.3 out on Solaris, that is a huge help in
getting this important update out there.
I do not know the answer to your question about the NIST CVE listings,
but I will inquire. Our CVE numbers actually come to us from
Carnegie-Mellon CERT, not NIST, but NIST does
> Hi Dennis,
>
> Thank you for getting 9.7.3 out on Solaris, that is a huge help in
> getting this important update out there.
I have been running 9.7.3 for a few days now on all my production DNS
servers ( a bunch ) and a few in client sites in Europe. All seems to be
running very well and the u
Hi,
Does “a successful IXFR transfer” include “AXFR-style IXFR” ?
Thanks,
T. Matsumoto
From: bind-users-bounces+tmatsumo=yahoo-corp...@lists.isc.org
[mailto:bind-users-bounces+tmatsumo=yahoo-corp...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of
Larissa Shapiro
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 5:56 AM
To: bin
26 matches
Mail list logo
