I was asked to add some backup master IP addresses to a slave zone file for
some HCP system, but those IPs not active and can't do zone transfer until
system failover.
My question is, does the order of the master ip list matters, so named
always tries
first ones until it fails tries next one? Or n
Currently we have about 20 DNS servers sit behind two pairs of F5 LTM on
campus, the two pairs of F5s using router injection for DNS virtual
addresses. This setup is costly and we are trying to use direct anycast
between router and server instead, with quagga and bgp.
The decision of advertise/wit
We are moving our v6 DNS from F5 to anycast, since F5 can translate address
from v6 to v4, our backend servers are still only v4 and we never have
problem to resolve hostname with v4 only.
Now for anycast, I want to enable v6 with private address only, but seems
like named favors v6 and using it t
We've been seeing sporadic failure of resolve this name
web1.production.tacc.utexas.edu from our nameserver.
There are 6 NS listed for domain production.tacc.utexas.edu, two of the six
don't seem to work(dc1.production.tacc.utexas.edu 129.114.13.17 and
dc2.production.tacc.utexas.edu 129.114.13.18)
il' to the
client(10.79.1.6) ?
Any help will be greatly appreciated!
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Hillary Nelson
wrote:
> We've been seeing sporadic failure of resolve this name
> web1.production.tacc.utexas.edu from our nameserver.
>
> There are 6 NS listed for domain produc
eries - name resolution isn't just broken for you, it's broken for
> everyone who wants to find web1.production.tacc.utexas.edu.
>
> John
>
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Hillary Nelson
> wrote:
> > Also should mention that our BIND is 9.9.8-P4, what confuses m
I've double checked our nameserver config and there shouldn't be any stub
involved when resolving this domain, we don't have forwarder configured.
After flush the cache or the cache expires itself(the ttl is short), bind
almost always hit another server and works, we have 9 named resolvers,
anytim
wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 21, 2016, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>>
>> server ::/0 { bogus yes; };
>
>
> Eeeeww! That's gross, but in a bizarrely satisfying way.
>
> W
>
>
>
>>
>> In message > hvy05q26lmpt...@mail.gmail.
8 matches
Mail list logo
