> Quoting from Chris Buxton's mail on Thu, Dec 23, 2010:
> > > Is there any option to add workarounds for specific domains /
> > > nameservers like the ones listed above?
> >
> > Possibly. You can try setting up conditional forwarding for the problem
> > domain, setting the authoritative name ser
Dnia 2010-12-30 11:45 Torinthiel napisał(a):
>Dnia 2010-12-30 18:03 p...@mail.nsbeta.info napisał(a):
>
>>Sunil Shetye writes:
>>
>>>
>>> Case 2: Lame Server Reply
>>>
>>> ===
>>> $ dig +norecurse @a.iana-servers.net. example.or
Dnia 2010-12-30 19:18 p...@mail.nsbeta.info napisał(a):
>Please see this dig:
>
>$ dig +norec dev.game.yy.com @202.96.128.166
>
>; <<>> DiG 9.4.2-P2 <<>> +norec dev.game.yy.com @202.96.128.166
>;; global options: printcmd
>;; Got answer:
>;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 31
On 12/30/10 10:45, Torinthiel wrote:
Dnia 2010-12-30 18:03 p...@mail.nsbeta.info napisał(a):
Sunil Shetye writes:
Case 2: Lame Server Reply
===
$ dig +norecurse @a.iana-servers.net. example.org.
;; flags: qr ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWE
Because it's contrary to itself.
You've specified norecurse, which means that if nameserver believes it has
authorative data it should return it, if it doesn't it should return a
referral (and no answer beside it).
But the server returns answer (which means it believes it has authorative
da
Dnia 2010-12-30 18:03 p...@mail.nsbeta.info napisał(a):
>Sunil Shetye writes:
>
>>
>> Case 2: Lame Server Reply
>>
>> ===
>> $ dig +norecurse @a.iana-servers.net. example.org.
>> ;; flags: qr ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2
Quoting from p...@mail.nsbeta.info's mail on Thu, Dec 30, 2010:
> Where is the document for these flags?
> I google'd but got no correct result :)
http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_DNSMessageHeaderandQuestionSectionFormat.htm
--
Sunil Shetye.
___
bind-u
Sunil Shetye writes:
Case 2: Lame Server Reply
===
$ dig +norecurse @a.iana-servers.net. example.org.
;; flags: qr ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;example.org. IN A
;; ANSWER SE
Sunil Shetye writes:
Quoting from p...@mail.nsbeta.info's mail on Thu, Dec 30, 2010:
What's the difference between these two flags in the response of
dig?
< ;; flags: qr ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 0
ra : recursion available
The nameserver is ready to ask other n
Quoting from p...@mail.nsbeta.info's mail on Thu, Dec 30, 2010:
> What's the difference between these two flags in the response of
> dig?
>
> < ;; flags: qr ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 0
ra : recursion available
The nameserver is ready to ask other nameservers for the r
What's the difference between these two flags in the response of dig?
< ;; flags: qr ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 0
---
;; flags: qr aa; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 0
Thanks in advance.
Sunil Shetye writes:
Quoting from David Sparro's mail on T
Quoting from David Sparro's mail on Tue, Dec 28, 2010:
> >Here, I can see that the nameserver is giving the right replies to all
> >queries except the NS queries.
>
> How can an authoritative server give "wrong" answers?
Due to misconfiguration of the NS records. My guess is that the domain
was t
On 12/24/2010 2:51 AM, Sunil Shetye wrote:
Here, I can see that the nameserver is giving the right replies to all
queries except the NS queries.
How can an authoritative server give "wrong" answers?
I was hoping that either bind should catch such cases automatically or
allow some workaround
Quoting from Chris Buxton's mail on Thu, Dec 23, 2010:
> > Is there any option to add workarounds for specific domains /
> > nameservers like the ones listed above?
>
> Possibly. You can try setting up conditional forwarding for the problem
> domain, setting the authoritative name servers as the
On Dec 22, 2010, at 4:55 AM, Sunil Shetye wrote:
> Is there any option to add workarounds for specific domains /
> nameservers like the ones listed above?
Possibly. You can try setting up conditional forwarding for the problem domain,
setting the authoritative name servers as the 'forwarders' li
On ons 22 dec 2010 10:09:10 CET, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote
Well, first find which is the real problem - domain delegated to invalisd
servers, server providing invalid data, and than you have to fix what is
broken.
Give us a real example if we have to provider real solution.
zone "rfc-ignor
Quoting from Matus UHLAR - fantomas's mail on Wed, Dec 22, 2010:
> > Case 1:
> >
> > Domain: e-nxt.com
> > Real Nameservers: ns1.webpresenceworld.com. ns2.webpresenceworld.com.
> > Fake Nameservers: ns5.zenexpress.com. ns6.zenexpress.com.
>
> Why fake?
>
> Both ns1.webpresenceworld.com and ns2.
> Quoting from Matus UHLAR - fantomas's mail on Wed, Dec 22, 2010:
> > > Is there any solution to this problem without contacting the DNS
> > > administrator of that domain? I have seen this problem for many
> > > domains on the internet.
> >
> > Well, first find which is the real problem - domain
Quoting from Matus UHLAR - fantomas's mail on Wed, Dec 22, 2010:
> > Is there any solution to this problem without contacting the DNS
> > administrator of that domain? I have seen this problem for many
> > domains on the internet.
>
> Well, first find which is the real problem - domain delegated t
On 22.12.10 14:01, Sunil Shetye wrote:
> Some authoritative nameservers add incorrect nameservers in the
> authority section of their replies.
Which authority and which domain?
Most of authorities add nameservers domain was registered on.
> Due to caching of the incorrect
> reply, further querie
Hi,
Some authoritative nameservers add incorrect nameservers in the
authority section of their replies. Due to caching of the incorrect
reply, further queries for that domain go to those incorrect
nameservers. Is there a way to ignore / not cache such replies?
For example, if ns1.realserver.com g
21 matches
Mail list logo
