Hi, all.
I have one question about NS cache ttl.
for example, I can get two different NS TTL like below.
$ dig google.com ns +trace
google.com. 172800 IN NS ns2.google.com.
google.com. 172800 IN NS ns1.google.com.
google.com. 172800
Dear,
We have two gateway DNS server running in BIND. One DNS is using one ISP link
and another DNS server is using another ISP link.
Today i tried to resolve below URL from one DNS its not working whereas the
same lookup is working fine another DNS.
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: goog
2012/1/12 MontyRee
>
> Hi, all.
>
>
> I have one question about NS cache ttl.
> for example, I can get two different NS TTL like below.
>
> $ dig google.com ns +trace
>
> google.com. 172800 IN NS ns2.google.com.
> google.com. 172800 IN NS ns1.google.
On 12.01.12 09:09, MontyRee wrote:
I have one question about NS cache ttl.
for example, I can get two different NS TTL like below.
$ dig google.com ns +trace
google.com. 172800 IN NS ns2.google.com.
google.com. 172800 IN NS ns1.google.com.
google.
On 12.01.12 15:37, babu dheen wrote:
We have two gateway DNS server running in BIND. One DNS is using one
ISP link and another DNS server is using another ISP link.
Today i tried to resolve below URL from one DNS its not working
whereas the same lookup is working fine another DNS.
Non-auth
* MontyRee:
> so, on resolving DNS, which NS record TTL will be cached generally?
> 172800 or 345600?
The child RRset will be cached and returned in client queries. However,
it has been suggested to check with the parent servers that the
delegation is still unchanged when it expires, so that you
Hello,
The question is less about TTL, but rather "credibility".
The answer from the root name server are referrals - AA bit in reply is
not set;
The answer from ns2.google.com. is from an authoritative NS (has the AA
bit set).
The latter answer has credibility "AUTH", which is the highest
--> st
Sten Carlsen wrote:
>
> Good news is that you should simplify your bogon list, lots of those
> addresses are now actually in use; e.g. I have regular visits on my
> pages by 2.x.x.x as they are now mostly handed out (local ISP here) and
> in legitimate use.
My bogon list only includes IPv4 addres
Hi,
I can see only below line in the logs which is no more useful. Actully i would
like to find out where exactly DNS query is blocked during query process
client 127.0.0.1#46547: view localhost_resolver: query: fpdns.googlecode.com IN
A +
Regards
babu
--- On Thu, 12/1/12, Matus UHLAR -
Dan Letkeman wrote:
> So what is the best practice for adding a static entry to a dynamically
> updated zone?
I would just use nsupdate to manage the static entries.
(Maybe I should add a partial zone mode to nsdiff...)
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
Sole: Variable 3 or 4, beco
On 12.01.12 19:41, babu dheen wrote:
I can see only below line in the logs which is no more useful.
Actully i would like to find out where exactly DNS query is blocked
during query process client 127.0.0.1#46547: view
localhost_resolver: query: fpdns.googlecode.com IN A +
could you run
From that machine, do a
dig +trace fpdns.googlecode.com
and analyze those results.
Then try
dig @ns1.google.com fpdns.googlecode.com
And repeat for the other authoritive name servers for that zone.
And realize that the 'issue' might be transitive, in other words here
one minute, gone the ne
Hi,
I am running one master server and one slave server with BIND 9.6.1-P3.
The global options section on both servers are identical.
In the options section I have,
allow-recursion { ck_domain; };
forwarders { 216.47.128.11; 216.47.128.12; 216.47.143.90; };
The ck_domain ACL c
You're getting caught up in semantics. The forwarding of the query *is*
recursive resolution. It's not a separate operation.
On 01/12/2012 06:15 PM, Adamiec, Lawrence wrote:
So when does recursion occur, before the query is forwarded or never? I
thought recursion was supposed to go looking for the answers. If
recursion does not return an answer then does the query get forwarded?
"forwarders" IIRC works as follows:
Dear Lyle,
Below method works fine but when i give again nslookup fpdns.googlecode.com ,
i am not getting any response.
What could be the issue?
Below is the complete result output
]$ dig +trace fpdns.googlecode.com
; <<>> DiG 1-RedHat-9.3.6-16.P1.el5_7.1 <<>> +trace fpdns.googlecode
This is a very good explanation. Thank you for your help.
Larry
> -Original Message-
> From: bind-users-bounces+ladamiec=kentlaw@lists.isc.org
[mailto:bind-users-
> bounces+ladamiec=kentlaw@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Phil Mayers
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 12:35
> To: bi
I am going to 'assume' that you also did a dig query against the other
three google.com servers and they all answered satisfactorily. But if
you did not, you need to query ns3 & ns4, you already got good answer
from ns1 and ns2
try:
dig @127.0.0.1 fpdns.googlecode.com
What program is runnin
Hi there,
Due to a variety of semi-political issues in our environment, we're
looking for a way to implement the following:
- 2 locations with standalone-capable local nameservers which serve
the same domain (ie, in case of network failure between them, we want
them both to go on working as autho
On 01/12/2012 17:04, Chris McCraw wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Due to a variety of semi-political issues in our environment, we're
> looking for a way to implement the following:
>
> - 2 locations with standalone-capable local nameservers which serve
> the same domain (ie, in case of network failure be
Hi--
On Jan 12, 2012, at 5:04 PM, Chris McCraw wrote:
> But those aren't an option here - they both need to serve the same
> domain and both need to allow local DDNS updates visible from both
> sides, and work in the absence of a network between the two. I've
> done some searching and it does not
Yes i did for ns1, ns2, ns3 & ns4 as well. But when i do dig @127.0.0.1 i am
not getting any result. Below is the output
Really i dont have any idea why?
$ dig @127.0.0.1 fpdns.googlecode.com
; <<>> DiG 1-RedHat-9.3.6-16.P1.el5_7.1 <<>> @127.0.0.1 fpdns.googlecode.com
; (1 server found)
;; g
In message <1326431703.18837.yahoomailclas...@web137306.mail.in.yahoo.com>, bab
u dheen writes:
>
> Yes i did for ns1, ns2, ns3 & ns4 as well. But when i do dig @127.0.0.1 i am
> not getting any result. Below is the output
First of all you *are* getting a result. If you had told people that you
23 matches
Mail list logo
