On 10/19/2012 11:57 PM, Chris Buxton wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2012, at 6:22 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
>> On Oct 19, 2012, at 9:17 PM, "Michael Hoskins (michoski)"
>> wrote:
>>> -Original Message-
On Oct 19, 2012, at 6:13 PM, Alan Clegg wrote:
>
> On Oct 18, 2012, at 1:13 PM
On Oct 19, 2012, at 6:22 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2012, at 9:17 PM, "Michael Hoskins (michoski)"
> wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>>> On Oct 19, 2012, at 6:13 PM, Alan Clegg wrote:
>>>
On Oct 18, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:
> On Oct 18 2012,
On Oct 19, 2012, at 9:17 PM, "Michael Hoskins (michoski)"
wrote:
> -Original Message-
>
> From: Warren Kumari
> Date: Friday, October 19, 2012 8:56 PM
> To: Alan Clegg
> Cc: "bind-us...@isc.org"
> Subject: Re: Disable log message
>
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2012, at 6:13 PM, Alan Clegg wr
-Original Message-
From: Warren Kumari
Date: Friday, October 19, 2012 8:56 PM
To: Alan Clegg
Cc: "bind-us...@isc.org"
Subject: Re: Disable log message
>
>On Oct 19, 2012, at 6:13 PM, Alan Clegg wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 18, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 18 2012,
On Oct 19, 2012, at 6:13 PM, Alan Clegg wrote:
>
> On Oct 18, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:
>
>> On Oct 18 2012, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012, Jack Tavares wrote:
>>>
I am running bind9.8.x built from source and I see this message in the
logs
b
-Original Message-
From: Chuck Swiger
Date: Friday, October 19, 2012 5:09 PM
To: John Miller
Cc: DNS BIND
Subject: Re: transparent DNS load-balancing with a Cisco ACE
>>
>> We're on a /16, so we have plenty of public IPs (though not as many as
>>you!) to play with, too. The choice to
While I can see maybe not being interested, caring enough to supress it has me
curious.
- Original Message -
From: Alan Clegg [mailto:a...@clegg.com]
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 06:13 PM
To: bind-us...@isc.org
Subject: Re: Disable log message
On Oct 18, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Chris Th
On Oct 18, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:
> On Oct 18 2012, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012, Jack Tavares wrote:
>>
>>> I am running bind9.8.x built from source and I see this message in the logs
>>> built with '--prefix=/blah' '--sbindir=/blah' '--sysconfdir=/blah'
>
On Oct 19, 2012, at 13.27, Phil Mayers wrote:
> Nicholas F Miller wrote:
>
>> DDNS record scavenging is the only feature I'm aware of that MS DNS has
>> that Bind doesn't . On the flip side, ISC Bind can ACL who can add
>> certain record types to a dynamic zone using GSS-TSIG as well as
>> supp
Hi--
On Oct 19, 2012, at 1:04 PM, John Miller wrote:
>> IMO, the only boxes which should have IPs in both public and private
>> netblocks should be your firewall/NAT routing boxes.
>
> That's how we usually have our servers set up--the load balancer gets the
> public IPs, the servers get the pr
Thanks Daniel. Good to hear of someone using NAT for DNS traffic. My
fears of it are mostly performance-based--every DNS query takes up a new
entry in the ACE's NAT table. In our case, that's thousands of queries
per second that the ACE has to keep in memory. I've shown it to be a
slight (2
On 10/19/12 1:25 PM, "John Miller" wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Perhaps a Cisco list is a better destination for this, but I've seen a
> similar post here in the past couple of months, so posting here as well.
>
> I'm trying to get our Cisco ACE set up appropriately to handle DNS
> traffic.
IMO, the only boxes which should have IPs in both public and private netblocks
should be your firewall/NAT routing boxes.
That's how we usually have our servers set up--the load balancer gets
the public IPs, the servers get the private IPs, and we use NAT to
translate between the two.
Here
Hi--
On Oct 19, 2012, at 11:25 AM, John Miller wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Perhaps a Cisco list is a better destination for this, but I've seen a
> similar post here in the past couple of months, so posting here as well.
>
> I'm trying to get our Cisco ACE set up appropriately to handle DNS tr
Hello everyone,
Perhaps a Cisco list is a better destination for this, but I've seen a
similar post here in the past couple of months, so posting here as well.
I'm trying to get our Cisco ACE set up appropriately to handle DNS
traffic. So far, I've gotten it working using NAT (each rserver h
Nicholas F Miller wrote:
>DDNS record scavenging is the only feature I'm aware of that MS DNS has
>that Bind doesn't . On the flip side, ISC Bind can ACL who can add
>certain record types to a dynamic zone using GSS-TSIG as well as
>supports views and ACLs for recursion. Everything else should be
DDNS record scavenging is the only feature I'm aware of that MS DNS has that
Bind doesn't . On the flip side, ISC Bind can ACL who can add certain record
types to a dynamic zone using GSS-TSIG as well as supports views and ACLs for
recursion. Everything else should be standard DNS.
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 02:30:12PM +0530, Ashok Agarwal wrote:
> I have gone thru the release note of BIND 9.8.0 to found that the
> feature "* dns64*" has been implemented in this version of BIND for
> the first time. I also learned that there are other features as
> well besides "dns64". Now,
On 10/18/2012 3:17 PM, bind-users-requ...@lists.isc.org wrote:
Hi All,
I'm hopping to get some feedback from people who use ISC Bind and DHCPD in
Active Directory environments.
Currently we use Bind/DHCPD for dynamic DNS and DHCP. It's been a pretty
stable service, redundant and we are polli
Hello All,
I have gone thru the release note of BIND 9.8.0 to found that the feature "*
dns64*" has been implemented in this version of BIND for the first time. I
also learned that there are other features as well besides "dns64".
Now, my task is to port "dns64" in my BIND 9.7.3 (ported for ISC BI
[ Not sure why this thread started on BIND-users:
please continue on DHCP-users! ]
On 18 Oct 2012, at 13:42, Dwayne Hottinger wrote:
> I checked the mac addresses of these clients and thus far they are all ipads,
> ipods or iphones.
We see BOOTP transactions here at UC
21 matches
Mail list logo
