On 19/8/16 12:38, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:32:43AM +0200, Wolfgang Riedel wrote:
>> ### bootup with: empty-zones-enable no;
>>
>> [root@ns1 ~]# systemctl status named-chroot.service
>> ● named-chroot.service - Berkeley Internet Name Domain (DNS)
>>Loaded: loaded (/us
On 1/6/16 16:10, Sotiris Tsimbonis wrote:
> On 1/6/16 15:50, Nico CARTRON wrote:
>> Hi Sotiris,
>>
>> On 1 June 2016 at 14:47:31, Sotiris Tsimbonis (sts...@forthnet.gr
>> <mailto:sts...@forthnet.gr>) wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/6/16 15:30, Kevin Kretz wrote:
s probably
the closest (geo) cluster for you..
I assume that it's 216.58.208.* for me, but not 172.217.16.*.
Sot.
> ----
> *From: *"Sotiris Tsimbonis"
> *To: *"Kevin Kretz"
> *Cc:
On 1/6/16 15:50, Nico CARTRON wrote:
> Hi Sotiris,
>
> On 1 June 2016 at 14:47:31, Sotiris Tsimbonis (sts...@forthnet.gr
> <mailto:sts...@forthnet.gr>) wrote:
>
>> On 1/6/16 15:30, Kevin Kretz wrote:
>> > There's also no reason to assume that the diff
find out is if there's anything from my
side to influence the load balancer's decision..
Sot.
> --------
> *From: *"Sotiris Tsimbonis"
> *To: *"Kevin Kretz"
> *Cc: *bind-us...@isc.org
> *
nearly the
same).
Sot.
> --------
> *From: *"Sotiris Tsimbonis"
> *To: *"Kevin Kretz"
> *Cc: *bind-us...@isc.org
> *Sent: *Wednesday, June 1, 2016 7:46:38 AM
> *Subject: *Re: different answers from google's authoritative servers
>
> On 1/6/1
pletely different subnet and
produces ssl errors in the browsers.. Like if it's a cluster for another
service, region or whatever..
Sot.
> --------
> *From: *"Sotiris Tsimbonis"
> *To: *bind-us...@isc.org
>
Hi all,
We have 3 recursive resolvers on the same subnet, and one of them is
getting different answers for the same things from google's
authoritative dns servers.
[root@syz3ns01 ~]# RESOLVERS="ns1.google.com. ns2.google.com.
ns3.google.com. ns4.google.com."
[root@syz3ns01 ~]# SITES="www.google.c
On 09/04/2014 11:14 πμ, Steven Carr wrote:
> On 9 April 2014 08:37, Mike Meredith wrote:
>> Am I missing something obvious? Such as it should work, but I've
>> somehow messed up? Or perhaps there's some option I've missed? Or am I
>> out of luck?
>
> That's not how views work. When you match a vi
Sotiris Tsimbonis wrote, On 09/04/2009 10:26 AM:
On 9/4/2009 10:10 πμ, Sotiris Tsimbonis wrote:
On 7/4/2009 12:09 μμ, Sotiris Tsimbonis wrote:
On 6/4/2009 9:23 μμ, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
At Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:38:01 +0300,
Sotiris Tsimbonis wrote:
Anyone else seen crashes like these
On 9/4/2009 10:10 πμ, Sotiris Tsimbonis wrote:
On 7/4/2009 12:09 μμ, Sotiris Tsimbonis wrote:
On 6/4/2009 9:23 μμ, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
At Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:38:01 +0300,
Sotiris Tsimbonis wrote:
Anyone else seen crashes like these?
FWIW, I've never seen any of these.
So
On 7/4/2009 12:09 μμ, Sotiris Tsimbonis wrote:
On 6/4/2009 9:23 μμ, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
At Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:38:01 +0300,
Sotiris Tsimbonis wrote:
Anyone else seen crashes like these?
FWIW, I've never seen any of these.
Solaris 10, Bind 9.4.3b2
Logfile:
10-Mar-2009
On 6/4/2009 9:23 μμ, JINMEI Tatuya / ç¥æéå wrote:
At Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:38:01 +0300,
Sotiris Tsimbonis wrote:
Anyone else seen crashes like these?
FWIW, I've never seen any of these.
Solaris 10, Bind 9.4.3b2
Logfile:
10-Mar-2009 09:14:19.460 general: socket.c:2739: fatal
Anyone else seen crashes like these?
Linux 2.6.18, bind 9.4.3-P1
03-Apr-2009 15:17:21.307 general: acache.c:393: INSIST(result == 0) failed
03-Apr-2009 15:17:21.307 general: exiting (due to assertion failure)
Solaris 9, bind 9.4.3b2
03-Apr-2009 18:14:36.890 general: acache.c:1660: fatal error:
0
14 matches
Mail list logo
