All, I understand this would be easier if it were not obfuscated. But alas that is not something that can be done.
Thank you to all who have responded. A lot of the information I'm receiving is indicating something on the authority level. Who has it, Who is supposed to have it, and the like. I'm going to continue in that skein until I have found an answer. case closed : Thank you to all for your help and additions and your time. Thank you, *Levi Pederson* Mankato Networks LLC cell | 612.481.0769 work | 612.787.7392 levipeder...@mankatonetworks.net On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Evan Hunt <e...@isc.org> wrote: > This would really be a lot easier if it were not anonymized. However... > > On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 02:43:30PM -0600, Levi Pederson wrote: > > Packet 840 Upstream-NS ---> Local-NS > [...] > > Frame 840: 245 bytes on wire (1960 bits), 245 bytes captured (1960 bits) > [...] > > .... .0.. .... .... = Authoritative: Server is not an authority > for > > domain > > Bad delegation, I guess. The "authoritative" server says it isn't. > > -- > Evan Hunt -- e...@isc.org > Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. >
_______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
