Am 18.11.2015 um 05:42 schrieb Dil Lee:
This is probably a dummy question.
My understand of bind in handling non-authoritative queries is:
1) forward mode. It just forward the client queries to an upstream DNS
server, which is defined in "forwarders" directive.
2) recursive mode. It actually st
Hi guys,
I'm having issues resolving www.fis.com.my. I'm trying to tell fis.com.my that
its an issue at their end, but when checking against 8.8.8.8 it resolves
fineso it MUST be a problem with me.
1. Lookups fail, this is clear enough
root@sputnik # dig @localhost www.fis.com.my
; <<>> D
Grant Taylor wrote:
>
> This quite from Twitter seems appropriate: DNSSEC only protects you from
> getting bad answers. If someone wants you to get no answers at all then
> DNSSEC cannot help.
That wasn't from Twitter, that was from me on NANOG.
http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2015-Nov
In message <659dec986e9347369634488991f6e...@pvsvrexc06.ad.tmres.my>, Elias Ahm
ed Kamal writes:
> Hi guys,
>
> I'm having issues resolving www.fis.com.my. I'm trying to tell fis.com.my tha
> t its an issue at their end, but when checking against 8.8.8.8 it resolves fi
> neso it MUST be a pro
Even with a broken delegation its like always resolvable with Google DNS or
even Open DNS. Are there any BIND specific workarounds?
-Original Message-
From: Mark Andrews [mailto:ma...@isc.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:26 PM
To: Elias Ahmed Kamal
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
S
Is this hosted on some sort of load-balancer?
Add a +norecurse to your dig and see how that changes things.
Regards,
Bob
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bind-users mailing list
bind-use
In message <5b818b25da9e40ebbff0e3d6dfec1...@pvsvrexc06.ad.tmres.my>, Elias Ahm
ed Kamal writes:
> Even with a broken delegation its like always resolvable with Google DNS or=
> even Open DNS. Are there any BIND specific workarounds?
The other nameservers will also fail with the right query sequ
Am 18.11.2015 um 12:34 schrieb Mark Andrews:
In message <5b818b25da9e40ebbff0e3d6dfec1...@pvsvrexc06.ad.tmres.my>, Elias Ahm
ed Kamal writes:
Even with a broken delegation its like always resolvable with Google DNS or=
even Open DNS. Are there any BIND specific workarounds?
The other name
All,
This isn't strictly a "bind" question, but it kind-of, sort-of is.
We've got an Office 365 tenancy, along with offsite voicemail. We send
our SIP connections to a hostname:
$GUID.um.outlook.com
This hostname is resolvable using "dig" & "host", but on Linux (glibc
2.20) the "ping", "tel
Phil Mayers wrote:
>
> This hostname is resolvable using "dig" & "host", but on Linux (glibc 2.20)
> the "ping", "telnet" and "nc" commands return "unknown host" or equivalent.
`ping` fails for me on FreeBSD but not MacOS.
> I suspect getaddrinfo isn't parsing the DNS response for some reason.
In article ,
Reindl Harald wrote:
> when a result looks like below it needs to be fixed and "Are there any
> BIND specific workarounds?" is the wrong question becaus even if - the
> domain owner is not in the position to place workarounds somewhere else
While that's the pedantically correct a
Am 18.11.2015 um 16:47 schrieb Barry Margolin:
In article ,
Reindl Harald wrote:
when a result looks like below it needs to be fixed and "Are there any
BIND specific workarounds?" is the wrong question becaus even if - the
domain owner is not in the position to place workarounds somewhere
On 11/18/15, 10:47 AM, "bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org on behalf of
Barry Margolin" wrote:
>In article ,
> Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>> when a result looks like below it needs to be fixed and "Are there any
>> BIND specific workarounds?" is the wrong question becaus even if - the
>> domain owner
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 2015-11-18 at 10:47 -0500, Barry Margolin wrote:
> While that's the pedantically correct answer, in practice it doesn't
> work well when your users complain "Google DNS deals with it, why
> don't you?" Your users don't care what happens to peop
In article ,
Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 18.11.2015 um 16:47 schrieb Barry Margolin:
> > In article ,
> > Reindl Harald wrote:
> >
> >> when a result looks like below it needs to be fixed and "Are there any
> >> BIND specific workarounds?" is the wrong question becaus even if - the
> >> domain
On 11/18/15, 1:19 PM, "bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org on behalf of Carl
Byington" wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Wed, 2015-11-18 at 10:47 -0500, Barry Margolin wrote:
>> While that's the pedantically correct answer, in practice it doesn't
>> work well when your us
In message <564c6ced.6060...@imperial.ac.uk>, Phil Mayers writes:
> All,
>
> This isn't strictly a "bind" question, but it kind-of, sort-of is.
>
> We've got an Office 365 tenancy, along with offsite voicemail. We send
> our SIP connections to a hostname:
>
> $GUID.um.outlook.com
>
> This hos
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:19:57PM +,
Phil Mayers wrote
a message of 44 lines which said:
> I suspect getaddrinfo isn't parsing the DNS response for some reason.
...
> Obviously the *.thing on the RHS of the first CNAME is weird, but is it
> illegal?
Yes, for a *host* name (no for a *doma
And whomever added underscorechar() to that should be shot. There
are good reasons to be able to distingish hostnames from other sorts
of text. Adding '_' doesn't help one do that as it is impossible to
distinguish underscored text from underscored hostnames.
T h i s _i s
Mark Andrews writes:
>
> And whomever added underscorechar() to that should be shot. There
> are good reasons to be able to distingish hostnames from other sorts
> of text. Adding '_' doesn't help one do that as it is impossible to
> distinguish underscored text from underscored hostnames
"Iterative" resolution means following the delegation hierarchy (by sending
queries with the RD flag set to 0) to get an answer; "recursive" resolution
means sending a query off (with the RD flag set to 1) and relying on the other
party to get a complete answer back to you. In order for recursiv
Mark Andrews writes:
>
> Mark Andrews writes:
> >
> > And whomever added underscorechar() to that should be shot. There
> > are good reasons to be able to distingish hostnames from other sorts
> > of text. Adding '_' doesn't help one do that as it is impossible to
> > distinguish underscor
22 matches
Mail list logo
