On 19/10/2011 1:15 μμ, Angel Bosch Mora wrote:
I just want to point that in case you use LDAP as backend there's a lot of
customizable LDAP clients you can use.
Angel, with such tools you manage the database, not DNS.
Frontends (should) allow easy creation/maintenance of domains and RRs
On 19/10/2011 12:51 μμ, Peter van Dijk wrote:
What I am looking for:
- any projects I missed
Check GOSA which supports LDAP backend.
- any and all opinions on any of the projects above
Haven't used any (neither GOSA).
- what information you would like to see in an overview of existing
On 19/10/2011 1:33 μμ, Jan-Piet Mens wrote:
And since we're nitpicking, let's call it a directory, shall we? :-)
Or the DIT! ;-)
I just wanted to use a more generic term to depict the difference
between managing the data directly in their store (whatever the store)
and managing them as DNS
On 18/9/2011 10:08 μμ, IRCHeaven Technical Support wrote:
Hello,
I have a question about Authoritative Server 3.0 and Recursor 3.3
Is it possible to run this on one server and then make a master/slave
configuration so that both servers has an Authoritative server and a
recursor?
I have
On 12/9/2011 3:41 μμ, Cyril Jaquier wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
I'm trying to setup a subdomain delegation using the LDAP backend but
did not manage to get it working so far. I found this post on the web
and that is exactly the problem I'm facing:
Hi Cyril,
On 22/7/2011 8:32 μμ, Nick Milas wrote:
On 21/7/2011 2:05 μμ, Nick Milas wrote:
What I found by further testing (disabled recursor running on the
same machine) is that, after pdns loses connection with ldap server,
when ldap is available again pdns hangs...
As a follow-up, I would like
On 21/7/2011 2:05 μμ, Nick Milas wrote:
What I found by further testing (disabled recursor running on the same
machine) is that, after pdns loses connection with ldap server, when
ldap is available again pdns hangs...
As a follow-up, I would like to note that this problem seems to have
been
Hi,
This (most probably) has to do with the fix of Ticket #260.
I noticed that in case pdns loses contact with the backend ldap server,
when it recovers, it no more returns correct results to DNS queries. For
some hosts it returns only A record, for others only record and in
some cases
Hi,
I have installed
http://downloads.powerdns.com/releases/rpm/pdns-static-3.0rc3-1.x86_64.rpm
and I am trying to run it on CentOS 5.6 x86_64 with LDAP backend, but it
doesn't seem to work (does this static package support LDAP?):
Jul 20 09:14:40 dns2 pdns[11633]: Guardian is launching an
On 20/7/2011 9:36 πμ, bert hubert wrote:
Kees Monshouwer usually builds CentOS native packages for PowerDNS
releases,
I hope he'll find the time shortly!
If he also can document (in detail!) the process of building these
packages, we will appreciate that! This will enable other people to
On 20/7/2011 12:14 μμ, Kees Monshouwer wrote:
Hello Nick
Starting with version 3 you need them at runtime...
On 20-7-2011 10:33, Nick Milas wrote:
...I was thinking that boost should be needed for development and
not for
completed RPMs. Am I right?
OK,
I first installed atrpms
On 7/7/2011 2:56 μμ, Nick Milas wrote:
Could you please give us LDAP-backend users an update as we are
closing to 3.0 release?
[Parenthetically, I feel I must also refer here to the issue with
pdns_control not working with LDAP backend to send Notify messages -
old Bug #37 (closed
On 18/6/2011 4:33 μμ, Florian G. wrote:
Thank you for the help. I was able to install boost 1.39 from the atrpms
repository just fine, but I still get the Missing boost error.
Hi Florian,
I am afraid I am not an expert with compiling; what I usually do (on
CentOS, when I plan to
Hi,
I am running powerdns authoritative (ldap backend) and recursor on the
same box (latest stable versions).
I have noticed that when I change something in my local authoritative
zones, these changes are not directly reflected to client requests,
obviously due to recursor's cache.
Can I
On 9/6/2011 1:14 μμ, Nick Milas wrote:
Can I somehow disable recursor's cache for specific domains (zones),
in particular the (local) zones for which powerdns (running on the
same box here, but could be running on a separate box as well) is
authoritative?
My setup is as follows (forgot
On 27/5/2011 12:59 πμ, fredrik danerklint wrote:
Hopefully Bert can answer better than I can on this.
Have you read the documentation about writeing a backend?
http://doc.powerdns.com/master-backends.html
It says that the backend only needs to have these two function to functions as
a master
On 27/5/2011 10:16 πμ, Jan-Piet Mens wrote:
If it were C, I could help you a bit -- the last time I looked
(admittedly a few years ago), PowerDNS was written in C++ ;-)
Thank you. Very kind of you.
It must be C++. Unfortunately, I am unfamiliar with both (C, C++).
I am an old tech guy:
Hi,
Can anyone please tell me how I can have svn access to pdns backends
source tree?
I used:
svn co svn://svn.powerdns.com/pdns/trunk/pdns pdns
as indicated here: http://wiki.powerdns.com/trac/wiki/HACKING but in
there I only see gmysql and bind backends.
I am mainly interested in
On 26/5/2011 11:13 πμ, Leen Besselink wrote:
I see the directories and files in pdns/modules/ (not pdns/pdns/backends !!)
Thanks, Leen.
You are right. I was confused. I see I should not look into
/pdns/pdns/backends but in /pdns/modules.
Thanks, again
Nick
On 26/5/2011 3:44 μμ, fredrik danerklint wrote:
Nick,
To answer all of your questions, please take a look at the source file
'communicator.cc'. At the end of that file there is a function called
void CommunicatorClass::mainloop(void) that checks slave and master every
other
On 14/4/2011 9:30 μμ, bert hubert wrote:
Hi Fredrik,
I have just merged it with the build system based on your latest version. It
is part of build 2163, and will be shipped as 'experimental' with version
3.0.
Hi Fredrik and all,
I see here: http://doc.powerdns.com/mongo.html that
On 25/5/2011 11:25 μμ, fredrik danerklint wrote:
PowerDNS ask each backend for domains which has a different 'notified_serial'
than 'serial' for the domain.
Thanks Fredrik for the info. If I understand it right, 'notified_serial'
is the one PowerDNS knows as current for a domain, and
On 15/5/2011 12:47 μμ, Nick Milas wrote:
I saw the 2193 tarball. I'll try to compile and test it tomorrow
(Monday).
I am having a hard time trying to compile it. I installed (from CentOS
repos) boost:
boost-1.33.1-10.el5
boost-devel-1.33.1-10.el5
but I was getting:
checking
On 16/5/2011 12:50 μμ, Imre Gergely wrote:
I think you need boost =1.34, the default version in CentOS 5 is not
enough.
Thank you. I thought 103400 meant v1.03.4 but it seems you are right,
it obviously means v1.34.
So, I installed (from the EPEL repo) packages boost141 and
On 14/5/2011 10:12 μμ, bert hubert wrote:
Well, you are proof that if you keep nagging you might get your way.
2193 has the fix for 313 suggested in that URL, it is building now.
Thanks, Bert. After all, you know that I am not just nagging, I have
invested *a lot* of time to prove the ldap
On 30/4/2011 11:00 πμ, Nick Milas wrote:
(i) It would not be difficult to include at least the proposed patch
for Ticket #313
(http://mailman.powerdns.com/pipermail/pdns-users/2010-September/007004.html)
in one v3.0 build so we can install and test.
(ii) I would encourage
Hello,
Just in case someone would like to examine some comparative performance
results re. various PowerDNS backends with ref. to BIND9, I am posting
the following tests.
In case you think something should be changed in the setup to make
results more objective, please let me know.
On 6/5/2011 12:04 am, Christopher Wood wrote:
2) There are people in the PowerDNS community developing maintaining it.
3) There are end-users with support contracts that need it, or there are
end-users willing to fund the development directly.
--
I don't
On 2/5/2011 10:00 πμ, Roland Schwingel wrote:
I subscribed the day I wrote this post and have read the posts
appearing since
than about the LDAP backend. I am a bit astonished about this. In my
eyes the LDAP backend is THE key benefit of powerdns. The easiness in
setting
it up and it's
Hello,
I have been trying to find stats on PowerDNS global use for some time
now, but I had not much luck.
The only sources I found were:
http://mailman.powerdns.com/pipermail/pdns-dev/2005-October/000347.html
and
http://dns.measurement-factory.com/surveys/
The second shows low numbers for
On 1/5/2011 12:58 πμ, Alejandro wrote:
HI Nick, The powerdns plugin for GOsa is finished, but the lack of
DNSSEC and the chance of drop this feature in future versions of
powerdns force the debian-edu project to choose bind in place of
powerdns for the next version of debian-edu.
...
I
On 30/4/2011 2:09 μμ, Angel Bosch Mora wrote:
there's also bindings for every coding language, so as you said anyone can
create their own tool.
I forgot to comment that you are very right in that. For example:
* PHP ldap bindings are great (we have used this API in our web
On 29/4/2011 10:43 πμ, Roland Schwingel wrote:
I am using pdns 2.9.22 with ldap backend for many months now. It works
very nice and without troubles.Thanks for this...
Maybe I am too dump to find this in the docu but I need to sort the
responses of dns replies according to where the request
On 23/3/2011 11:05 πμ, bert hubert wrote:
To clarify, PowerDNS development happens because one or more of the
following three reasons:
...
We also develop quite some things because, frankly, we find them cool
For LDAP, right now none if these things is the case. 1) We don't feel that
LDAP is
On 30/4/2011 2:09 μμ, Angel Bosch Mora wrote:
this is inacurate. LDAP has a lot of multi-platform front-ends, most
of them really customizable. there's also bindings for every coding
language, so as you said anyone can create their own tool.
Hi Angel,
You are partly right: yes, there are
On 15/4/2011 3:30 μμ, Nick Milas wrote:
It's been 10 days (two business weeks) since your last update. Any
news for us anxious pdns/ldap users? :-)
Hi Udo,
I don't want to make you feel pressure, but it's been 16 days since we
last heard from you, and you were estimating to publish fixes
On 4/4/2011 12:44, Udo Rader wrote:
yes, I took a look on the issues and will put some work into fixing
them. From my POV #260 will be the first and most important thing to
deal with.
#317 looks trivial to fix, but as mentioned in the bug report, side
effect may exist.
...
ETA for the fixes
On 30/3/2011 7:41 μμ, Pascal R. wrote:
HI,
my PDNS currently do IPv4 recursion with the following config:
recursor=8.8.8.8
How can i add an IPV6 Recorder to the pdns.conf ?
This is what I use in my pdns.conf:
local-address=127.0.0.1 10.10.10.10
do-ipv6-additional-processing=yes
I wanted to quickly chime in on this. I agree with the decision to
move the LDAP backend into unmaintained status and not fix these
bugs right now. If there isn't a big enough community demand to supply
the resources needed to maintain it, then there likely isn't a big
enough demand to make
On 03/24/2011 11:36 AM, Nick Milas wrote:
On 24/3/2011 10:11 πμ, Angel Bosch Mora wrote:
what about a community donation?
we could create a ticket with all people interested in this feature
and how much can they contribute.
i think there's more people than we thing using LDAP backend.
I
On 24/3/2011 12:55 μμ, Udo Rader wrote:
On the other hand, I perfectly understand Bert's POV on the issue, so I
what I can offer is taking a look on the open issues and maybe - if time
allows - putting some manpower to it, but I will first have a look at
the issues myself.
Thanks Udo,
As I
Sorry, the following was sent by mistake! Please ignore (the message is
already in the list, sent by Udo Rader)!
Nick
On 24/3/2011 1:03 μμ, Nick Milas wrote:
On 03/24/2011 11:36 AM, Nick Milas wrote:
On 24/3/2011 10:11 πμ, Angel Bosch Mora wrote:
what about a community donation?
we could
Good news about upcoming version.
However, not so good news for the LDAP backend...
So, I feel that LDAP-related issues should - at least - remain open,
since they have not been fixed. Closing them with an indication of
Unable to devote time to the LDAP backend (or similar), would most
On 23/3/2011 11:05 πμ, bert hubert wrote:
Unless something happens, the LDAP backend will move to 'unmaintained'
status in the 3.0 release.
I think this attitude is the best. At least new admins planning DNS
server deployment *will know* that they should probably keep off LDAP
backend, since
In CentOS 5, I directly edit iptables file.
I'm using the following DNS rules for iptables (as suggested by
RH/CentOS), and I have no problems with DNS servers:
-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -p udp --dport 53 -j ACCEPT
-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -p tcp --dport
Hi Kenneth,
Sorry for the (slightly) delayed reply.
Your arguments are valid; I hope that LDAP PDNS community can find a way
to cooperate to at least succeed in maintaining the LDAP backend (even
without adding much new functionality - as DNSSEC -, at this stage). I
have earlier mentioned
Hi Bert and all,
I am sure there is some plan (by the powerDNS project managers) to
continue Norbert's great work on the LDAP backend. One of the powerful
features of powerDNS over other products is the strong and elegant
operation with an LDAP backend, which - as I have read in numerous
Thanks Norbert,
Although the OpenLDAP guys would not encourage such a change (and,
formally speaking, they are right), since the aRecord attribute
definition (in the standard distribution cosine.schema file) is
according to RFC 1274 without a SUBSTR matching rule, I guess it's the
easiest
μμ, bert hubert wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 01:24:53PM +0200, Nick Milas wrote:
Just wondering, will DNSSec be supported soon with other backends
except relational databases?
Yes, but it depends on the maintainer. For LDAP, Norbert Sendetzky would
need to do the heavy lifting, since
Any suggestions?
Norbert, any advice?
Could you please clarify?
Thanks very much,
Nick
On 8/1/2011 2:08 μμ, Nick Milas wrote:
Hi,
This is more of an LDAP question, but it is directly connected to
powerdns/ldap-backend, so I need some feedback:
I am trying to select particular records
Hi,
Just wondering, will DNSSec be supported soon with other backends except
relational databases?
I'm most interested in LDAP backend. Any plans? Which backends will
Authoritative Server 3.0 support (except of course the dbase ones
mentioned above)?
Thanks,
Nick
Hi,
This is more of an LDAP question, but it is directly connected to
powerdns/ldap-backend, so I need some feedback:
I am trying to select particular records based on their aRecord
attribute in openldap (dns records stored in ldap backend - simple mode).
So I am trying to use - in
Hi,
We are using powerdns authoritative (latest version: 2.9.22) with ldap
backend and recursor latest version (3.3).
CNAME to external hosts works fine.
This is the record:
dn: dc=myhost,dc=example.com,ou=dns,dc=example,dc=com
objectClass: dNSDomain2
objectClass:
Thanks Ken,
It makes sense.
Since no one has send any other info, I assume you are correct.
Regards,
Nick
On 4/12/2010 5:35 μμ, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
My two cents and I am certain that someone will correct me
if I am mistaken, but the outgoing timeouts are when the
remote site does not
entries, 63% packet cache hits
Dec 4 11:39:03 vdns pdns_recursor[2217]: stats: 0 qps (average over
1935 seconds)
Thanks in advance,
Nick Milas
___
Pdns-users mailing list
Pdns-users@mailman.powerdns.com
http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo
Hi,
I never had problems with AXFR between powerdns authoritative server and
BIND9, but the problem was in Notify messages.
You may want to read the threads:
Can pdns (with ldap backend) be a master of BIND9 slave?:
56 matches
Mail list logo
