> > 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
>
Yeah, it looks like I might have to give up on this.
paul
-Original Message-
From: bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org
[mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Matus UHLAR -
fantomas
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 10:29 AM
To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: dname
On 14.10.15 10:11, Paul A wrote:
Niall my problem is the name server that delegated the reserve does look up the
record correctly.
I have this in the zone,
DNAME 0/24
;;
;;; delegate to server
;;
0/24NS ns.someserver.com
;;
At the ns.someserver.com the looks u
.orei...@ucd.ie]
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 6:29 PM
To: Paul A
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: dname reverse delegation
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
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
does is not real
Paul A wrote:
> I have a few /24 that I want to delegate using DNAME.
> Lets says I have 192.168.13.0/24 how would I go about doing reserve on the
> forwarding server using DNAME.
Coincidentally I just published this draft less than three hours ago, and
it describes how to use DNAME to reduce th
Why are you trying to complicate the lookup process unnecessarially?
Just delegate 13.168.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA. People over use stuff that
really isn't needed and by doing so turn a relatively simple
proceedure into a complicated mess.
RFC 2317 delegation techniques really should only be used for /
8 matches
Mail list logo