Barry Margolin pointed out an amusing interaction between two stupid DNS
tricks on the bind-users list:
https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/2014-May/093171.html
If you have an authoritative server with ANAME or CNAME flattening
support, and the target of the ANAME is a CDN that does
Tony Finch wrote:
Barry Margolin pointed out an amusing interaction between two stupid DNS
tricks on the bind-users list:
https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/2014-May/093171.html
If you have an authoritative server with ANAME or CNAME flattening
support, and the target of the ANAME
Moin!
On 08 May 2014, at 17:47, Paul Vixie p...@redbarn.org wrote:
Tony Finch wrote:
Barry Margolin pointed out an amusing interaction between two stupid DNS
tricks on the bind-users list:
https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/2014-May/093171.html
If you have an authoritative server
Ralf Weber wrote:
...
There is madness, but the madness is in mixing authoritative and recursive
functions in one server and not in using DNS to direct traffic.
while i'm on record has holding that view, it turns out that RFC 1035
does describe recursion and authority as co-residing in a
#1 - support doing the work to finalize the edns-client-subnet standard.
now... (I hope my inline response is accepted by the readers of this
wg's list, I would note that someone's quoting is all jacked up... oh
well)
pull up waders
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Paul Vixie p...@redbarn.org
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Ralf Weber d...@fl1ger.de wrote:
There is madness, but the madness is in mixing authoritative and recursive
functions in one server and not in using DNS to direct traffic.
That's a pretty big assumption to jump to. It's pretty unlikely that all
ANAME
