On 08/02/2016 04:01 PM, Ray Bellis wrote:
> On 02/08/2016 19:47, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
>
>> In the authoritative configuration, BIND has no need to do DNS lookups
>> of its own, so it wouldn't be any use there.
>
> That's not strictly true - BIND will in some circumstances use its own
> interna
On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 05:04:33PM -0400, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
> Yes it will. But, as far as I understand, it uses the recursive code paths
> to do that, and won't consult resolv.conf. Yes?
Correct. However, an option to use the system resolver for this instead
is a feature request we've been
On the server running BIND if you're trying to resolve addresses with many
commands it will use /etc/nsswitch.conf which usually will say to go to "dns"
first then to "files" if that doesn't work. The "dns" tells it to use
/etc/resolv.conf. Therefore you'd want to add 127.0.0.1 to your list
On 02/08/2016 22:04, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
> Yes it will. But, as far as I understand, it uses the recursive code
> paths to do that, and won't consult resolv.conf. Yes?
I believe that's correct, yes.
Ray
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/ma
On 2 August 2016 at 17:01, Ray Bellis wrote:
> On 02/08/2016 19:47, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
>
> > In the authoritative configuration, BIND has no need to do DNS lookups
> > of its own, so it wouldn't be any use there.
>
> That's not strictly true - BIND will in some circumstances use its own
> in
On 02/08/2016 19:47, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
> In the authoritative configuration, BIND has no need to do DNS lookups
> of its own, so it wouldn't be any use there.
That's not strictly true - BIND will in some circumstances use its own
internal resolver to handle the host lookups for NOTIFYs and
Is it really necessary to document everything that *isn't* true? That could
fill volumes...
named is the thing that resolves stuff; /etc/resolv.conf tells processes whom
to talk to if they want to resolve stuff. Put those things together, why would
named need /etc/resolv.conf? To talk to *itsel
On 2 August 2016 at 12:25, Spumonti Spumonti wrote:
> (I've done several searches for this first but the general nature of some
> of these terms returned way too many non-relevant responses)
>
> I was recently told that named does not use resolv.conf when resolving
> names. This was not something
(I've done several searches for this first but the general nature of some of
these terms returned way too many non-relevant responses)
I was recently told that named does not use resolv.conf when resolving names.
This was not something I was aware of but at this point I accept that. The
system
On Sun, 2016-07-31 at 19:25 -0700, Dave Warren wrote:
Or, separate your resolver and authoritative roles, in which case this
won't be an issue. One should still monitor for zones for customers
who have departed, obviously, but it's not likely to cause any
operational issues.
On 01.08.16 10:37,
10 matches
Mail list logo
