Hey everybody,
we have three subnet ( x.x.98.0/24 ; x.x.99.0/24 ; x.x.100.0/24 ) connected
to a firewall wich is connected to WAN ( so the gateway always x.x.x.254 ).
We wanted switch from dnsmasq to BIND9.
The BIND9 and (old) dnsmasq DNS Server is in 99.0/24 net with IP 201(BIND)
and 200(dnsm
sethologik wrote:
>
> Is there an option in BIND9 which needs to be set when I want to get full
> query answers from different subnets or something like that?
Exactly, yes :-) In your options section, put
allow-query {
x.x.98.0/24;
x.x.99.0/24;
But this is what i already did...
could it be something with the firewall?
--
Sent from: http://bind-users-forum.2342410.n4.nabble.com/
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bind-users maili
On 15.11.18 05:29, sethologik wrote:
we have three subnet ( x.x.98.0/24 ; x.x.99.0/24 ; x.x.100.0/24 ) connected
to a firewall wich is connected to WAN ( so the gateway always x.x.x.254 ).
We wanted switch from dnsmasq to BIND9.
The BIND9 and (old) dnsmasq DNS Server is in 99.0/24 net with IP 2
On Thu, 2018-11-15 at 05:49 -0600, sethologik wrote:
> But this is what i already did...
>
> could it be something with the firewall?
It _could_ be many things. You need to properly troubleshoot the issue.
1) Can a host with failing DNS resolution ping the DNS server?
2) Does a tool like nmap sho
In article ,
Frank Liu wrote:
> Thanks for confirming bind behavior matches what I saw.
> I noticed other resolvers (eg: @8.8.8.8) works differently, c.b.a.com NS
> host2 actually got used, not ignored as occluded data.
That shouldn't be possible. The occluded data should never be given out
by
I recently updated a couple servers that were running OpenBSD 6.3 with
bind 9.11.3 to OpenBSD 6.4 and bind 9.11.4pl2. Since then, I'm been
getting a large number of "error sending response: would block" log
messages:
Nov 15 11:03:58 lisa named[79587]: client @0x6f2f02bc440
10.128.30.77#65198 (p64-
That's an internal setting can't be exposed.
I created a public test name: test.c.b.jilapps.com
Should you see A record 1.2.3.4 or 5.6.7.8?
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 8:25 AM Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article ,
> Frank Liu wrote:
>
> > Thanks for confirming bind behavior matches what I saw.
> >
8 matches
Mail list logo