Hello,
Has anyone here implemented Response Rate Limiting? If so have you
experienced any bugs with the RRL Patch for BIND 9.9.2? Can the feature be
implemented successfully without implementing the patch that includes
DNSRPZ as well?
Regards,
Lesley-Anne Wilson
--
*
*
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 2013-05-10 at 11:41 -0500, Wilson, Lesley-Anne wrote:
> Has anyone here implemented Response Rate Limiting?
Yes.
> If so have you experienced any bugs with the RRL Patch for BIND 9.9.2?
No.
> Can the feature be implemented successfully with
On 10/05/13 17:41, Wilson, Lesley-Anne wrote:
Hello,
Has anyone here implemented Response Rate Limiting? If so have you
Yes, recently.
experienced any bugs with the RRL Patch for BIND 9.9.2? Can the feature
No bugs. I'm not a huge fan of the logging categories, but that's a
personal thing
I want to test Bind 9.9.3b2.
Why isn't there Bind 9.9.3b2 in download link on the ISC.org?
Is there recommendation to use the version Bind 9.9.3b2?
I look in http://www.isc.org/software/bind/security/matrix that there
isn't bug in Bind 9.9.3b2.
_
Thanks for the quick responses guys.
Regards,
Lesley-Anne Wilson
On 10 May 2013 11:41, Wilson, Lesley-Anne
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Has anyone here implemented Response Rate Limiting? If so have you
> experienced any bugs with the RRL Patch for BIND 9.9.2? Can the feature be
> implemented successfu
Is there some specific reason you want to test an old, pre-release
version, versus the current RC1 release candidate?
On Fri, May 10, 2013, at 12:20 PM, Anderson Alves de Albuquerque wrote:
> I want to test Bind 9.9.3b2.
>
> Why isn't there Bind 9.9.3b2 in download link on the ISC.org?
>
> Is
On May 10 2013, ixlo...@sent.at wrote:
Is there some specific reason you want to test an old, pre-release
version, versus the current RC1 release candidate?
Actually, 9.9.3rc2 is there at ftp://ftp.isc.org/isc/bind/9.9.3rc2
although it doesn't seem to have been announced on bind-announce yet.
Hello, BIND Users --
The second release candidates for the upcoming maintenance releases
of BIND are now available on the ISC FTP server. 9.9.3rc2, 9.8.5rc2,
and 9.6-ESV-R9rc2 can now be downloaded; you will find them at
http://www.isc.org/downloads/all
Also, please recall that in April we post
DNS is not the place to solve that problem, it's the routing layer.
"Use Bgp Luke " :-)
Sent from my iPad
On 08/05/2013, at 15:24, Sten Carlsen wrote:
> I believe your major point is the routing tables because they determine how
> the response is trying to get out.
>
>
> On 08/05/13 22:22,
On May 10, 2013, at 01.18, Dave Warren wrote:
> On 2013-05-08 11:13, btb wrote:
>> it's also mildly humorous that they used to quite religiously endorse
>> .local, in some documents even categorizing use of the same domain name on
>> an internal and external network as a "security risk".
>
>
On 2013-05-10 16:39, b...@bitrate.net wrote:
On May 10, 2013, at 01.18, Dave Warren wrote:
On 2013-05-08 11:13, btb wrote:
it's also mildly humorous that they used to quite religiously endorse .local, in some
documents even categorizing use of the same domain name on an internal and external
On May 9, 2013, at 8:44 AM, Carlos Martinez wrote:
> DNS is not the place to solve that problem, it's the routing layer.
Yes, but *sometimes* DNS is the right layer for this… For example, if you have
2 sites (so you can remain up when a meteor / flood / avalanche hits one), if
you need better
I found that bind9.9.2 recursor returns servfail to soa requests when
receiving inproper nodata notification that there is just a root SOA RR in the
authority section in response from authoritative namservers.
Just like this as following. Why does it forward the inproper response to
clients?
13 matches
Mail list logo
