A lot of times we get responses that look like:
a.b.c.d CNAME x.y.z
x.y.z IP 1.1.1.1
BIND always sends out an additional query as soon as it encounters the CNAME it
stops processing and either x.y.z. is in cache or needs another query to
respond.
Is there a setting in BIND to actually use the
A lot of times we get responses that look like:
FOO.BAR CNAME EXAMPLE.BAR
EXAMPLE.BAR A 1.1.1.1
BIND currently (atleast with the default settings) when it encounters
a CNAME stops processing and checks if EXAMPLE.BAR is in cache or else
sends out another query to resolve it even though the A rec
adding it into the
Additional section. Am I wrong ?
-srinivas
On Monday, June 25, 2012 5:55:50 PM UTC-4, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Jun 25, 2012, at 2:34 PM, Srinivas Krishnan wrote:
> > You are using a caching resolver to check the responses and you only see
> > response after its b
re checked for CNAMEs. Is that
correct ?
-srinivas
On Monday, June 25, 2012 5:53:04 PM UTC-4, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message
>
> , Srinivas Krishnan writes:
> > The RFC rules on CNAMEs is fairly tight but I am seeing an increasing
> > amount of traffic with misconf
query to
wordpress.
Is having a CNAME in the additional section regular CNAME chaining, my
understanding was that additional sections do not contain CNAMEs.
-srinivas
On Monday, June 25, 2012 5:29:24 PM UTC-4, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Jun 25, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Srinivas Krishnan wrote:
>
The RFC rules on CNAMEs is fairly tight but I am seeing an increasing
amount of traffic with misconfigured CNAMEs some of which are accepted
by BIND as valid responses. The examples capture three trends, note
these are actual responses:
1) Example-1: CNAME in the additional section necessary to fi
6 matches
Mail list logo
