2012/11/9 Peter Andreev :
> 2012/11/9 Tony Finch :
>> Peter Andreev wrote:
>>>
>>> We signed another zone and met the same problem again. The only
>>> difference is algorithm - now it is RSASHA256.
>>>
>>> > We have ~30 servers running BIND (9.8, 9.7, 9.6). A week ago we
>>> > signed first of our
2012/11/9 Tony Finch :
> Peter Andreev wrote:
>>
>> We signed another zone and met the same problem again. The only
>> difference is algorithm - now it is RSASHA256.
>>
>> > We have ~30 servers running BIND (9.8, 9.7, 9.6). A week ago we
>> > signed first of our zones with RSA/SHA1 + NSEC3 + OPT-O
Peter Andreev wrote:
>
> We signed another zone and met the same problem again. The only
> difference is algorithm - now it is RSASHA256.
>
> > We have ~30 servers running BIND (9.8, 9.7, 9.6). A week ago we
> > signed first of our zones with RSA/SHA1 + NSEC3 + OPT-OUT.
> > Recently we realised th
Hi everybody!
We signed another zone and met the same problem again. The only
difference is algorithm - now it is RSASHA256.
> We have ~30 servers running BIND (9.8, 9.7, 9.6). A week ago we
> signed first of our zones with RSA/SHA1 + NSEC3 + OPT-OUT.
> Recently we realised that our servers don't
On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 13:59 +0400, Peter Andreev wrote:
> Hello!
>
> We have ~30 servers running BIND (9.8, 9.7, 9.6). A week ago we have
> signed first of our zones with RSA/SHA1 + NSEC3 + OPT-OUT.
> Recently we realised that our servers don't generate NSEC3 for signed zone.
> Problem has gone af
Hello!
We have ~30 servers running BIND (9.8, 9.7, 9.6). A week ago we have
signed first of our zones with RSA/SHA1 + NSEC3 + OPT-OUT.
Recently we realised that our servers don't generate NSEC3 for signed zone.
Problem has gone after we restarted BIND instances.
Is described behaviour normal for
6 matches
Mail list logo