The fix will be to only go onto the next element of the search list
on nxdomain. Searches really should stop on REFUSED, SERVFAIL,
NOERROR, NOTIMP.
You move onto the next nameserver on REFUSED, SERVFAIL, NOTIMP.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61
On Aug 29 2013, Mark Andrews wrote:
The fix will be to only go onto the next element of the search list
on nxdomain. Searches really should stop on REFUSED, SERVFAIL,
NOERROR, NOTIMP.
Regardless of the stopping rule, host and nslookup ought to display
the FQDN they are claiming to get (say) a
Hi , can anybody explain the process that bind9 do When we press dig
www.example.com.
What the files which is opened ?
What the functions and classes which is used?
and Thanks
___
Please visit https://lists.is
Good Morning,
Wow, all these messages, as other posters have pointed out to me, dig
shows what I wanted to see, REFUSED, only host shows NXDOMAIN and from
other posts I see why I am getting that result, so in the end its all
just a false alarm, my servers are doing the right thing, so I can
rest ea
On Aug 29, 2013, at 8:48 AM, Nidal Shater wrote:
> Hi , can anybody explain the process that bind9 do When we press dig
> www.example.com.
>
> What the files which is opened ?
>
> What the functions and classes which is used?
I would recommend that you may want to read some of the documents
One of my contacts noticed that you cannot query 42.fr's SOA with
BIND: SERVFAIL. Querying other types, or using Unbound (or Google
Public DNS) instead of BIND works.
The only thing special he sees is the double SOA:
% dig SOA 42.fr
; <<>> DiG 9.9.2-P1 <<>> SOA 42.fr
;; global options: +cmd
;; G
On 29 August 2013 19:22, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> I'm not sure of what the RFC say about that...
While RFC 1035 doesn't seem to explicitely say that multiple are
forbidden, or how to handle the case of multiple records, it does
state under section 5.2. (Use of master files to define zones):
When RFC 1035 was written, the strict rules between SHOULD/MUST didn't
yet exist.
That "should" is to be considered a MUST from the standpoint of modern RFCs.
- Kevin
On 8/29/2013 2:31 PM, Steven Carr wrote:
On 29 August 2013 19:22, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
I'm not sur
In article ,
Noel Butler wrote:
> replying to ones self a few times in one day or a sign I need a break..
> but...
>
> I think the issue is this
>
> Trying "www.undernet.org"
> Received 34 bytes from 198.147.21.12#53 in 348 ms
> Trying "www.undernet.org.ausics.net"
> Using domain server:
>
>
In message <20130829182253.ga13...@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>, Stephane Bortzmey
er writes:
> One of my contacts noticed that you cannot query 42.fr's SOA with
> BIND: SERVFAIL. Querying other types, or using Unbound (or Google
> Public DNS) instead of BIND works.
>
> The only thing special he see
Alan,
None of the files you listed (bind.keys, managed-keys.bind and
managed-keys.bind.jnl) are in the bind installation directory, or the chroot
that named is run in. I did add the following line in the named.conf file :
managed-keys-directory "/var/log";
where /var/log is a writable di
Barry,
On Thu, 2013-08-29 at 16:16 -0400, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article ,
> Noel Butler wrote:
>
> > replying to ones self a few times in one day or a sign I need a break..
> > but...
> >
> > I think the issue is this
> >
> > Trying "www.undernet.org"
> > Received 34 bytes from 198.147.
12 matches
Mail list logo
