> I don't know why but the created new digest hash didn't match.
> The technique is to use same digest algorithm type and create a digest
> of the matching DNSKEY. In this case the resulting digest didn't match.
> (New one was six bytes shorter.)
I did this wrong. A little cleanup below. I don'
I added a large amount of debugging.
Too bad the many checks didbn't have debug logging.
I don't know why but the created new digest hash didn't match.
The technique is to use same digest algorithm type and create a digest
of the matching DNSKEY. In this case the resulting digest didn't match.
What are people picking for:
Compatibilty: "ESXi 6.7 U2" or "ESXi 6.7"
Guest OS Family:"Linux" or "Other"
Guest OS Version: "FreeBSD 12 or later version (64-bit)" or "Other (64
bit)"
Or something not listed?
Thank you
Scott...
scott.bu...@seqent.com
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020, Jarle Greipsland wrote:
> r...@reedmedia.net writes:
> > I was able to reproduce maybe the problem. I think the version of named
> > is bad (it is unsupported).
> Might it have to do with the fact that the (only) DS RR for
> protonmail.ch uses digest type 4 (i.e. SHA-384), wh
Thanks for all the comments and help.
> That is reversed. It is using bindkeys-file. Have a look at
> /usr/share/doc/reference/ref8/bind9/arm/Bv9ARM.ch06.html (or see my
> extended edited version of it :)
I did, but I am still not following. It seems there are multiple places
to get root key
r...@reedmedia.net writes:
> I was able to reproduce maybe the problem. I think the version of named
> is bad (it is unsupported).
Might it have to do with the fact that the (only) DS RR for
protonmail.ch uses digest type 4 (i.e. SHA-384), which is an
optional algorithm? What is the support of ou
