Is it acceptable to have a wildcard CNAME? Example:
* IN CNAMEsomewhere.com.
Or, would it be advised to only use wildcard 'A' records?
Thanks.
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to
On 16.01.13 14:57, Baird, Josh wrote:
Is it acceptable to have a wildcard CNAME? Example:
* IN CNAMEsomewhere.com.
Or, would it be advised to only use wildcard 'A' records?
while it is technically valid, I don't think it's acceptable to use solutions
tha
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 16.01.13 14:57, Baird, Josh wrote:
> > Is it acceptable to have a wildcard CNAME? Example:
> >
> > * IN CNAMEsomewhere.com.
> >
> > Or, would it be advised to only use wildcard 'A' records?
>
> while it is technically valid,
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 02:57:48PM +, Baird, Josh wrote:
> Is it acceptable to have a wildcard CNAME? Example:
>
> * IN CNAMEsomewhere.com.
>
> Or, would it be advised to only use wildcard 'A' records?
Not valid since there should be SOA and NS records
In article ,
Oliver Peter wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 02:57:48PM +, Baird, Josh wrote:
> > Is it acceptable to have a wildcard CNAME? Example:
> >
> > * IN CNAMEsomewhere.com.
> >
> > Or, would it be advised to only use wildcard 'A' records?
>
>
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:33:03AM -0500, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article ,
> Oliver Peter wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 02:57:48PM +, Baird, Josh wrote:
> > > Is it acceptable to have a wildcard CNAME? Example:
> > >
> > > * IN CNAMEsomewher
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 16.01.13 14:57, Baird, Josh wrote:
> Is it acceptable to have a wildcard CNAME? Example:
>
> * IN CNAMEsomewhere.com.
>
> Or, would it be advised to only use wildcard 'A' records?
while it is technically valid, I don't thin
Is there anything technically wrong with having a SOA MNAME field that
isn't listed as a NS record?
The server listed as MNAME will host the zone and is authoritative for
the zone, but out of latency concerns it isn't ideal to have other
resolvers querying this server.
Various online DNS dia
On Jan 16, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
> Is there anything technically wrong with having a SOA MNAME field that isn't
> listed as a NS record?
Sure. The SOA MNAME is expected to be the "primary master" nameserver for the
zone; it's where things like dhcpd and such send dynamic updates
There is no issue with a configuration like this. It is the very definition
of a stealth master and is a very common configuration. Any DDNS updates
will continue to reach the stealth master via the mname and no resolvers
will find the master via NS records so it won't be queried.
On Jan 16, 2013 3
In article ,
Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
> > Is there anything technically wrong with having a SOA MNAME field that
> > isn't listed as a NS record?
>
> Sure. The SOA MNAME is expected to be the "primary master" nameserver for
> the zone; it's where
On Jan 16, 2013, at 1:42 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article ,
> Chuck Swiger wrote:
>
>> On Jan 16, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
>>> Is there anything technically wrong with having a SOA MNAME field that
>>> isn't listed as a NS record?
>>
>> Sure. The SOA MNAME is expected to be
Brian Paul Kroth 2013-01-15 23:19:
Hello All,
First, I'm not currently on the list, so please CC if me if you could.
Let's try this again now that I'm on the list.
Next, I've been working on some scripts to get KSK rotation
semi-automated or at least alerting in our environment and I've got
> From: Dave Warren
> Various online DNS diagnostic tools throw warnings,
Speaking of so called DNS diagnostic tools, one claims that my domains
have DNS servers with "private" network addresses. My only guess is
that they don't know the difference between IPv6 addresses and
RFC 1918 addresses.
-Original Message-
From: Vernon Schryver
Date: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 5:05 PM
To: "bind-users@lists.isc.org"
Subject: Re: MNAME not a listed NS record
>> From: Dave Warren
>
>> Various online DNS diagnostic tools throw warnings,
>
>Speaking of so called DNS diagnostic tools, one c
In article ,
Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 1:42 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > In article ,
> > Chuck Swiger wrote:
> >
> >> On Jan 16, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
> >>> Is there anything technically wrong with having a SOA MNAME field that
> >>> isn't listed as a NS reco
On Jan 16, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
[ ... ]
On Jan 16, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
> Is there anything technically wrong with having a SOA MNAME field that
> isn't listed as a NS record?
Sure. The SOA MNAME is expected to be the "primary master" na
In article ,
Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
> [ ... ]
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
> > Is there anything technically wrong with having a SOA MNAME field that
> > isn't listed as a NS record?
>
> Sure. The S
> Is there anything technically wrong with having a SOA MNAME field
> that isn't listed as a NS record?
Not at all; that works fine.
> The server listed as MNAME will host the zone and is authoritative
> for the zone, but out of latency concerns it isn't ideal to have
> other resolvers querying t
On 1/16/2013 22:17, Jan-Piet Mens wrote:
Is there anything technically wrong with having a SOA MNAME field
that isn't listed as a NS record?
Not at all; that works fine.
Thanks. That's what I thought, but I wanted to confirm that this
particular "warning" didn't have any backing in reality.
On 1/16/2013 13:53, Chuck Swiger wrote:
True, but I don't see much utility from a nameserver which can be dynamically
updated but not queried.
It *can* be queried, it's just not ideal as the machine has a fair
amount of load and has fairly high latency. Since I have secondaries in
colocation
21 matches
Mail list logo
