Greg Choules via bind-users wrote:
> What would be better (IMHO) is for you to keep "example.com" as your
> external zone in an external (hopefully in a DMZ) primary server,
> serving the world with public addresses they need to reach, and
> internally create a new zone - "interna
Hi team,
If there is a scenario where NS are not reachable, until its up we can serve
from cache.
Enabling serve-stale can help us with this use case, is it safe to enable this
parameter and what should be the recommended value set for max-stale-ttl ?
--
Regards,
Prasanna
--
Visit https://li
* Commonly when an answer to a query is larger than UDP should handle, a
switch to TCP is required. This can be configurable and done in unexpected
ways to thwart DDOS
* I do not know of any laws specifically mentioning DNS. General computer
system/network laws could apply.
* I think there would be
This is a horrible reason to enable serve-stale. Serve stale is a bandaid. You
should increase a resiliency of the architecture - have more nameservers for
the domain, make the restarts seamless, etc.
Serve-stale was meant to deal with unexpected outages and not as a workaround
for bad engineer
4 matches
Mail list logo