On Ma, 05 iul 11, 18:13:06, William Hopkins wrote:
>
> The primary reasons are 1) reliability separate from your ISP and 2) verified
> correct results without NXDOMAIN spam and other such things.
[...]
> Please believe point 2 is based in verified and somewhat commonly-known fact,
> and not pa
On Tue 05 Jul 2011 at 18:13:06 -0400, William Hopkins wrote:
> The primary reasons are 1) reliability separate from your ISP and 2) verified
> correct results without NXDOMAIN spam and other such things. For 1, although
> your ISPs routers may be up their DNS may go down or become incorrectly
> co
On 07/05/11 at 11:18pm, Brian wrote:
> On Tue 05 Jul 2011 at 22:09:38 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
> > [snip recursive explanation]
>
> It was a really good explanation, wasn't it?
> >
> > Thanks a lot for this explanation, DNS is still a bit like dark magic to
> > me :)
>
> I suspect you ma
On Tue 05 Jul 2011 at 22:09:38 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> [snip recursive explanation]
It was a really good explanation, wasn't it?
>
> Thanks a lot for this explanation, DNS is still a bit like dark magic to
> me :)
I suspect you may be doing yourself an injustice. :)
> My understanding
On 07/05/11 at 10:09pm, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Sb, 02 iul 11, 12:23:39, William Hopkins wrote:
> > On 07/02/11 at 02:06pm, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > > On Sb, 02 iul 11, 09:35:35, Erwan David wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's what I do : I have unbound locally for recursive, and it caches
> > > > f
On Sb, 02 iul 11, 12:23:39, William Hopkins wrote:
> On 07/02/11 at 02:06pm, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > On Sb, 02 iul 11, 09:35:35, Erwan David wrote:
> > >
> > > That's what I do : I have unbound locally for recursive, and it caches
> > > for the local network + bind for authoritative.
> >
> > No
On 07/02/11 at 02:06pm, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Sb, 02 iul 11, 09:35:35, Erwan David wrote:
> >
> > That's what I do : I have unbound locally for recursive, and it caches
> > for the local network + bind for authoritative.
>
> Not sure what "recursive" means [...]
Recursive queries are what a
On Sb, 02 iul 11, 09:35:35, Erwan David wrote:
>
> That's what I do : I have unbound locally for recursive, and it caches
> for the local network + bind for authoritative.
Not sure what "recursive" means, but dnsmasq shines on your gateway,
where it can provide DHCP too and make sure your local
On 01/07/11 23:21, William Hopkins wrote:
> On 07/02/11 at 12:01am, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>> On Mi, 29 iun 11, 20:08:16, Brian wrote:
>>> On Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 12:22:26 -0600, Glenn English wrote:
>>>
For a good time, 'apt-get install bind' :-)
>>>
>>> For an even better time (and to escape
On Sat 02 Jul 2011 at 00:01:29 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> If caching is all you need then
>
> apt-get install dnsmasq
I quite like unbound's DNSSEC aspect.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@li
On 07/02/11 at 12:01am, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 29 iun 11, 20:08:16, Brian wrote:
> > On Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 12:22:26 -0600, Glenn English wrote:
> >
> > > For a good time, 'apt-get install bind' :-)
> >
> > For an even better time (and to escape the monoculture)
> >
> >apt-get install
On Mi, 29 iun 11, 20:08:16, Brian wrote:
> On Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 12:22:26 -0600, Glenn English wrote:
>
> > For a good time, 'apt-get install bind' :-)
>
> For an even better time (and to escape the monoculture)
>
>apt-get install unbound
If caching is all you need then
apt-get install
On Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 16:36:51 -0400, William Hopkins wrote:
> Agreed, I was just replying to your monoculture comment.. running a local
> recursive server is still a great idea (and thread contribution). Sorry if I
> implied otherwise!
I didn't take it that way. You made a fair technical point a
On 06/29/11 at 08:44pm, Brian wrote:
> On Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 15:27:53 -0400, William Hopkins wrote:
>
> > Monoculture is one thing, but that is not a comparable product. Unbound is
> > for
> > recursive-only, so you can't have your own zone.
>
> Within the context of the thread I thought it a go
On Jun 29, 2011, at 1:27 PM, William Hopkins wrote:
> Also, the Debian package name for ISC BIND is bind9.
Good point, well taken. Oops...
--
Glenn English
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.d
On Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 15:27:53 -0400, William Hopkins wrote:
> Monoculture is one thing, but that is not a comparable product. Unbound is for
> recursive-only, so you can't have your own zone.
Within the context of the thread I thought it a good fit and worth a
mention.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema
On 06/29/11 at 08:08pm, Brian wrote:
> On Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 12:22:26 -0600, Glenn English wrote:
>
> > For a good time, 'apt-get install bind' :-)
>
> For an even better time (and to escape the monoculture)
>
>apt-get install unbound
Monoculture is one thing, but that is not a comparable p
On Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 12:22:26 -0600, Glenn English wrote:
> For a good time, 'apt-get install bind' :-)
For an even better time (and to escape the monoculture)
apt-get install unbound
:-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". T
On Jun 29, 2011, at 11:51 AM, William Hopkins wrote:
> On 06/29/11 at 10:15am, ChadDavis wrote:
>> Not a big deal, but just made me think. Surely the name resolution
>> isn't that costly is it?
>
> Depends on latency and distance to your DNS server, how long it takes the DNS
> server to perform
On 06/29/11 at 10:15am, ChadDavis wrote:
> I notice that the following two invocations of netstat have
> drastically different execution times:
>
> netstat
>
> netstat -n
>
>
> When you just use numerical addresses, it executes almost instantly,
> but with the domain names and whatever you call
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:15:58 -0600, ChadDavis wrote:
> I notice that the following two invocations of netstat have drastically
> different execution times:
>
> netstat
>
> netstat -n
>
>
> When you just use numerical addresses, it executes almost instantly, but
> with the domain names and what
I notice that the following two invocations of netstat have
drastically different execution times:
netstat
netstat -n
When you just use numerical addresses, it executes almost instantly,
but with the domain names and whatever you call those logical names
for the port numbers, such as 'www', it
22 matches
Mail list logo
