Re: DNS views TSIG and zone xfers

Thanks Bob, that is exactly what I ended up doing. And its working great now. You are also right about the view selection. On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Bob Harold wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 6:25 PM, project722 wrote: > >> Actually, I got to

Re: DNS views TSIG and zone xfers

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 6:25 PM, project722 wrote: > Actually, I got to thinking about this. The "other_allowed_ns" ACL is in > the global options, along with an "allow-transfer" for that ACL. So, I > *think* they will still be able to zone transfer via the global option >

Re: Question about dynamic IPv6-PTR-Generation

>A very popular option is to only create or delegate IPv6 PTR entries for >hosts with static address assignments, and to return NXDOMAIN for >address space used for dynamic address assignments. I talk to a lot of large providers at M3AAWG and that's the consensus about what to do. If it doesn't

Re: Question about dynamic IPv6-PTR-Generation

Tom wrote: > This is the configuration-option, where I'm searching for. But probably this > will take some time, until it's accepted, tested, implemented...etc. What do > you propose in the meantime instead of using wildcards or allow the clients > to register themselves or making static

Re: Question about dynamic IPv6-PTR-Generation

On 26 August 2016 at 15:41, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > >>> On 26.08.16 14:01, Matthew Pounsett wrote: > >> That's not necessarily true for IPv6, where even a modest network could >> have trillions of addresses that may need PTR records. >> > > that's exactly why using

Re: Question about dynamic IPv6-PTR-Generation

On 26 August 2016 at 13:45, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > On 26.08.16 07:34, Tom Tom wrote: > >> I'm searching a way to respond to IPv6-PTR-Queries like the >> "$GENERATE"-mechanism for IPv4 has done it. >> > > why? configuring single IP addresses or taking them from DHCP is

Re: Question about dynamic IPv6-PTR-Generation

On 26.08.16 07:34, Tom Tom wrote: I'm searching a way to respond to IPv6-PTR-Queries like the "$GENERATE"-mechanism for IPv4 has done it. why? configuring single IP addresses or taking them from DHCP is easier than creating new useless mechanism. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ;

Re: Need of caching on bind server

In article , Harshith Mulky wrote: > Thank you John, Mukund, Barry and Dave for your insights and answers on this > Topic. > > > @Dave, Lets say we have a Web Page cached(when queried by User 1) and the >

Re: Question about dynamic IPv6-PTR-Generation

Hello Tom I only know of Knot having a feature available for this use case: https://www.knot-dns.cz/docs/2.x/html/configuration.html#synth-record-automatic-forward-reverse-records Daniel On 26.08.16 11:51, Tom wrote: > Many thanks for your quick feedback. > > This is the configuration-option,

Re: Question about dynamic IPv6-PTR-Generation

Many thanks for your quick feedback. This is the configuration-option, where I'm searching for. But probably this will take some time, until it's accepted, tested, implemented...etc. What do you propose in the meantime instead of using wildcards or allow the clients to register themselves or

DNSSEC and time.nist.gov

I've noticed a spike of ServFail responses on our caching resolvers due to some DNSSEC issues on time.nist.gov (CNAME to ntp1.glb.nist.gov). If anyone of you guys has a direct contact would you be so kind and notify them... http://dnsviz.net/d/time.nist.gov/dnssec/ -- BR, Rok

RE: Question about dynamic IPv6-PTR-Generation

> Hi list > > I'm searching a way to respond to IPv6-PTR-Queries like the "$GENERATE" > -mechanism for IPv4 has done it. > > I read about Delegation, self-registration with "tcp-self" or using > Wildcards with the disadvantage, that every query has the same response. > Is there a (planned) way, to