Devices should return ICMP unreachables when networks are not reachable. This
allows applications to move onto the next address. Not returning unreachables
results in timeouts being the mechanism to move to the next address.
Additionally applications can make parallel connection attempts. This
On 1/20/20, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>
> Please note that filter--on-v4 was always wrong.
how so?
> You should fix your network instead. It’s a bandaid, not a fix.
My ISP doesn't offer ipv6, so I'm not sure how to fix my network..
unless you mean disable ipv6 on everything? (which I'm not sure
Run named with -4 option, that will disable IPv6.
Please note that filter--on-v4 was always wrong. You should fix your
network instead. It’s a bandaid, not a fix.
Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý — ISC
> On 20 Jan 2020, at 04:38, Carl Byington via bind-users
> wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Sun, 2020-01-19 at 21:54 -0500, Steve Farr via bind-users wrote:
> Does anyone know of a functionality that replaced the now-obsolete
> filter--on-v4?
plugin query "filter-.so" {
filter--on-v4 yes;
};
-BEGIN PGP
Lee, that was fantastic. Thank you! Setting the whole IPv6 internet to be Bogus
worked like a charm. It would appear that even though IPv6 is unbound from the
NIC that BIND is running on, and even though BIND is only listening on v4
addresses, and even though I had the v6 roots commented out
On 1/18/20, Steve Farr wrote:
>
> I don't have IPv6 connectivity through my ISP, and don't use it on my LAN,
> so I have it unchecked/not bound in Windows,
Same here.
When I tried running named on windows it didn't support the -4 option;
the workaround I was given was to add
server ::/0 { bogus
Since it sounds like you have not had much experience with, I urge you to check
it out should you have anything in your environment that could benefit from
automation. Simply telling someone to chunk it and not have any experience with
it is a little misguided IMO.
We pay multiple different
On 1/19/20 4:01 AM, N. Max Pierson wrote:
I honestly couldn’t tell you either way as I have not even begun
to start to dive into DNSSEC.
I can recommend the following book from Michael W. Lucas / @mwlauthor
and say that it provides a good, actionable, introduction to DNSSEC.
Link - DNSSEC
On 1/19/20 3:25 AM, N. Max Pierson wrote:
Hi Grant,
Hi,
I should have been a little more descriptive in the scenario by giving
the purpose of these name servers. They are basically being deployed
as a managed DNS service that we offer. We are a MSP for the most
part and the DNS
Hi John,
> 1. What is your/teams plan B to fix this type of ansible environment should
> it get horked up? There is a ton of stuff that is being configured for you
> all under the hood and by your own admission your a novice. The laws of
> unintended consequences apply.
With bind, I am a
Hi Grant,
A couple of things ….
I should have been a little more descriptive in the scenario by giving the
purpose of these name servers. They are basically being deployed as a managed
DNS service that we offer. We are a MSP for the most part and the DNS
infrastructure was not being very well
11 matches
Mail list logo
