Re: Can we do a sub-domain delegation with godaddy?

2014-01-16 Thread Sam Wilson
In article , Warren Kumari wrote: > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Blason R wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > > > I am not sure if this is an appropriate forum to answer since more or less > > it is pertaining to Go Daddy support but since its a huge community our > > there and I am sure many of them

How to deny update of statically assgined a/ptr records?

2014-01-16 Thread Oleg Gvozdev
Hello. I have dynamic zone. And A record in it: Example(pseudo-code): *zone myzone.* * a 10.0.0.1 domain xxx* Then I made DHCP update for host "host.myzone." and it receives address from dynamic range (10.0.0.10-10.0.0.100), for example: 10.0.0.10. So host.myzone. has 2 A records: 10.0.0.1

Re: How to deny update of statically assgined a/ptr records?

2014-01-16 Thread Mark Andrews
In message , Oleg Gvozdev writes: > Hello. > > I have dynamic zone. And A record in it: > > Example(pseudo-code): > > > *zone myzone.* > * a 10.0.0.1 domain xxx* > > Then I made DHCP update for host "host.myzone." and it receives address > from dynamic range (10.0.0.10-10.0.0.100), for exam

Re: Sites that points their A Record to localhost

2014-01-16 Thread cool hand luke
On 01/15, Bill Owens wrote: > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 07:55:44PM -0500, Kevin Darcy wrote: > > Loopback is anti-social; an apparent attempt to make the client > > waste resources connecting to itself. In legal terms, one might call > > this an "attractive nuisance". > > You're quite right; that's

Re: How to deny update of statically assgined a/ptr records?

2014-01-16 Thread Doug Barton
On 01/16/2014 06:01 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: In message , Oleg Gvozdev writes: Hello. I have dynamic zone. And A record in it: Example(pseudo-code): *zone myzone.* * a 10.0.0.1 domain xxx* Then I made DHCP update for host "host.myzone." and it receives address from dynamic range (10.0.0.1

RE: Upgrading from 9.8.3 to 9.9.4

2014-01-16 Thread Mike Bernhardt
Am I correct in understanding that the change to "enabled by default" was in 9.9.x, not in 9.8.x? The 9.9.x specifically states that is enabled by default whereas the 9.8.x documentation does not. -Original Message- From: Lawrence K. Chen, P.Eng. [mailto:lkc...@ksu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, Jan

RE: Upgrading from 9.8.3 to 9.9.4

2014-01-16 Thread Mike Bernhardt
Sorry for the double post, but I forgot to ask this: And if it is indeed enabled regardless of my RFC1918 ranges, I would imagine that for my internal servers which have those ranges, I would want to add "disable-empty-zone ".";" to my global options? And for my external-facing server which of cour

Re: Upgrading from 9.8.3 to 9.9.4

2014-01-16 Thread Mike Hoskins (michoski)
-Original Message- From: Mike Bernhardt Date: Thursday, January 16, 2014 4:09 PM To: "bind-users@lists.isc.org" Subject: RE: Upgrading from 9.8.3 to 9.9.4 >Sorry for the double post, but I forgot to ask this: >And if it is indeed enabled regardless of my RFC1918 ranges, I would >imagine