On Mon, January 11, 2010 8:33 pm, Matthew Pounsett wrote: > The problem may be at Kloth.. but at least one of the many possible > problems they might be having could be corrected by a slightly different > configuration at your end.
Thanks Matt for your (and others) continued help with this - it is much appreciated. > According to RFC you must have at least two name servers on different > networks for each delegation. I interpret this as two name servers *per > address protocol* that you want to support. So, if you want to support > queries from the v4 Internet (there may be reasons you don't) then you > should have at least two name servers responding to queries over v4. I will do eventually. Given this is just for personal use/experimentation I may get one of the free DNS providers to act as a secondary. > Koth may be having network trouble on v4 which prevents them from getting > at 77.103.161.0/24. If that is the problem, a second v4 name server in a > different subnet (at a different site) might present them with a path to a > name server that can answer their query. This is the reason why there is > a redundancy requirement in the RFC. I did think that, but then I can force them to use my server (using the @ option) and they resolve quite happily. It seems to be somewhere between the .org and server and mine that they have trouble with! > That said.. there is nothing wrong with a name server that only answers > using one address protocol or the other. And there is functional > precedent in infrastructure for name servers that are only on v6. > j.gtld.biz, which is authoritative for the us. zone only has a v6 address. > While this occasionally confuses an operator here and there, the DNS > likes it just fine. That's good to know - I thought I was trying to do something that was fundamentally forbidden! Mathew _______________________________________________ bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
