>
>
>
>
> From: bind-users [mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Bob
> Harold
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 4:15 PM
> To: Cathy Almond
> Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> Subject: Re: Reverse IPv6
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Cathy Almond wrote:
>
>
> On 02/02/2017 02:5
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Andrews [mailto:ma...@isc.org]
>
> Named does not check that a parent zone has NS records for a child
> zone on the same server. Always add delegating NS records.
>
> As for ENT returning NXDOMAIN. Early versions of the specifications
> of DNSSEC said the
> -Original Message-
> From: Woodworth, John R
> -Original Message-
> From: bind-users [mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Phil
> Mayers
> >
> > On 12/02/2017 11:09, Woodworth, John R wrote:
> >
> > > SAMPLE ZONES:
&
-Original Message-
From: bind-users [mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Phil
Mayers
>
> On 12/02/2017 11:09, Woodworth, John R wrote:
>
> > SAMPLE ZONES:
> > 101{redacted}.com. (REAL ZONE FILE)
> > jwjw.sales.101{redacted}.com.
All,
I am asking for advice/ comments/ best-practices for bind
configuration and zone RRs to avoid potential issues with
Empty Non-Terminal (ENT) domain names.
Before continuing, I feel I must point out I am a big fan
of improvements in network and protocol efficiency
including RFC-8020. I also f
> This is a common point of confusion. DNS does not transfer
> zoneFILES. Zone files are read and converted into the
> in-memory tree structure. Zones are sent in wire format
> from the in-memory tree. The receiving end populates its
> in-memory tree. It can then convert the information to
> z
Hello,
We've recently noticed multiple $TTL values in transferred zonefiles which do
not exist in the original zonefiles. They appear to be aggregates of TTLs set
for individual records and I am definitely a fan of the organized look and feel.
However, I am curious about how they should be int
> My plan is to have two remote, authoritative name servers
> (master and slave) for my owned domains. I would like to use rndc
> to control them from my local host.
>
> A couple of questions:
Tom,
I have a slightly unorthodox view on this which may even offer a bit more
security. The answers a
Apologies for the double post, I was not finished with edits in my
previous post:
> John Levine wrote:
> > >It is true at first glance the regex-esque syntax in our I-D may seem
> > >a bit complex but I don't believe anywhere near the complexity of
> > >NAPTR
> >
> > None of the complexity of NAPT
> John Levine wrote:
> > >It is true at first glance the regex-esque syntax in our I-D may seem
> > >a bit complex but I don't believe anywhere near the complexity of
> > >NAPTR
> >
> > None of the complexity of NAPTR is in the DNS or the DNS servers; it's
> > all in the applications that use NAPTR
> John R. Levine wrote:
> > > Just curious, is there a fundamental reason you have to oppose this
> > > beyond simply the scale?
> >
> > It's a cargo cult style extension of a not particularly useful IPv4
> > convention to IPv6. A much more useful convention that happens to be
> > easier to implem
> > Just curious, is there a fundamental reason you have to oppose this
> > beyond simply the scale?
>
> It's a cargo cult style extension of a not particularly useful IPv4
> convention to IPv6. A much more useful convention that happens to
> be easier to implement is that hosts with static addres
> I'll let the market decide. For now, such a requirement isn't even
> a blip on the horizon as far as I can see.
Understood. I guess we all have our own perspective and priorities.
There are, however, several popular commercial DNS vendors I know
first hand which are offering their own propriet
> > Simply pretending a shark doesn't exist offers very little in shark
> > protection. While I understand this school of thought I don't believe
> > it will solve the problem or remove the need.
>
> We're still in the early phases of IPv6. If sufficient ISPs drop PTR
> for dynamic IPv6 addresses,
>
> >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
> 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
> From: bind-users [mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of
> Harshith Mulky
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 12:47 AM
> To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> Subject: Need of caching on bind server
>
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to understand why caching is required on the bind server,
> when
> >Is there an echo in here?
>
> More like an endless loop.
>
> -JP
ICMP: Echo Reply
> ___
> Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
> from this list
>
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users@lists.isc.org
> h
0.05.16 21:09, Woodworth, John R wrote:
> >This is exactly what some colleagues and I are working to get a handle on.
> >We see this as becoming a larger and larger issue especially as IPv6
> >adoption increases. We have had several customers already request
> >generics at /96
;2016-05-20 23:09 GMT+02:00 Woodworth, John R
> >:
> >> The below referenced I-D for "BULK" records:
> >> * Provides "generics" which are automatically generated based on a set
> >> of rules.
> >> * The records have similar features as w
> -Original Message-
> From: MegaBrutal [mailto:megabru...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 9:11 PM
> To: Woodworth, John R; bind-users
> Subject: Re: Forward zone not working
>
> 2016-05-20 23:09 GMT+02:00 Woodworth, John R :
> > The below refere
> -Original Message-
> From: bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org
> [mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org]
> On Behalf Of John Wobus
> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 3:08 PM
> To: bind-users
> Subject: Re: Forward zone not working
>
> On May 16, 2016, at 5:35 PM, MegaBrutal wrote:
> >
> > 201
>
> > >Ideally every machine should be registering its own PTR record in the
> > >DNS and addresses without machines shouldn't have PTR records.
> > >The only reason ISP did this is that they were too lazy to manage PTR
> > >records for their customers.
> >
> > And because no ISP wants "you.suck.is
> -Original Message-
> From: bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org
> [mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of MegaBrutal
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 1:31 PM
> To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> Subject: Forward zone not working
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have an IPv6 reverse PTR zone for a /4
> See inline comments:
>
> From: bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org [bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] on
> behalf of John W. Blue [john.b...@rrcic.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 7:46 PM
> To: chris liesfield; bind-users@lists.isc.org; james.skli...@
> From: bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org
> [mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Steve Arntzen
> >
> > The reason is, when our Bind server is communicating over a satellite link
> > with a 600 ms round trip time per transaction, the delay becomes noticeable
> > (>1.2 seconds for a
From: bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org
[mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Steve Arntzen
>
> The reason is, when our Bind server is communicating over a satellite link
> with a 600 ms round trip time per transaction, the delay becomes noticeable
> (>1.2 seconds for a single
>
> From: Harshith Mulky [mailto:harshith.mu...@outlook.com]
>
> Hello John,
>
> > 1.) Are these devices some type of VoIP device? I've seen many novel DNS
> > based scenarios used for VoIP before.
> [Harshith] yes, they are VOIP devices which use "lwresd" to talk to
> external DNS Servers
>
>
> From: bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org
> [mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Harshith Mulky
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 10:50 AM
> To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> Subject: RE: bind-users Digest, Vol 2230, Issue 1
>
> No Mark, This is not a question I am asked to answer
> > From: Bob Harold [mailto:rharo...@umich.edu]
> > Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 3:37 PM
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Woodworth, John R
> > wrote:
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Mark Andrews [mailto:ma...
> > On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:40:30 +0100,
> > Paul A wrote:
> > >
> > > I have a few /24 that I want to delegate using DNAME.
> >
> >
> > Are you expecting to save yourself trouble by doing so?
> > If not, you should probably reconsider.
> >
> > If you decide DNAME is a useful trick, bear in mi
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:40:30 +0100,
> Paul A wrote:
> >
> > I have a few /24 that I want to delegate using DNAME.
>
>
> Are you expecting to save yourself trouble by doing so?
> If not, you should probably reconsider.
>
> If you decide DNAME is a useful trick, bear in mind that what DNAME
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Andrews [mailto:ma...@isc.org]
> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 7:08 PM
> To: Woodworth, John R
> Cc: 'bind-users@lists.isc.org'
> Subject: Re: Best practices for coding new RR Types
>
>
> In message
> >
Hello,
I am trying to implement logic for an experimental (Internet Draft) RR type and
follow most of the code flow but am curious if there is a common methodology
beyond trying to duplicate another record with similar attributes.
Any help/ tips to get ramped up quickly with the process and avo
34 matches
Mail list logo
