On 14/11/12 17:50, btb wrote:
> On 2012.11.14 10.02, King, Harold Clyde (Hal) wrote:
>> I'm a bit confused by a user request. I think he is trying to keep some
>> hosts on the private side of DNS, but he wants to use a DNS name like
>> host.sub.local. I do not know of the use of the .local TLD exc
Just upgraded to 9.9.2 today and am seeing the following in syslog for the
first time:
Nov 14 15:08:58 local@mercury named[2920]: [ID 873579 daemon.info] adb:
grow_names to 6143 starting
Nov 14 15:08:58 local@mercury named[2920]: [ID 873579 daemon.info] adb:
grow_names finished
I gather this i
On 2012.11.14 10.02, King, Harold Clyde (Hal) wrote:
I'm a bit confused by a user request. I think he is trying to keep some
hosts on the private side of DNS, but he wants to use a DNS name like
host.sub.local. I do not know of the use of the .local TLD except in
bonjure. Can anyone shed some lig
On 14/11/12 16:19, Daniel Ryšlink wrote:
Hello,
I started to see a flood of these errors after upgrading to the latest
BIND 9.9.2:
14-Nov-2012 17:14:15.304 general: warning: RSA_verify failed
14-Nov-2012 17:14:15.304 general: info: error:04077068:rsa
routines:RSA_verify:bad
signature:/usr/src/s
On 14/11/12 15:02, King, Harold Clyde (Hal) wrote:
I'm a bit confused by a user request. I think he is trying to keep some
hosts on the private side of DNS, but he wants to use a DNS name like
host.sub.local. I do not know of the use of the .local TLD except in
bonjure. Can anyone shed some light
On 14/11/12 15:39, Kevin Darcy wrote:
I stopped reading as soon as I saw the requirement to add a NetBIOS
name, being overpowered by the stench of obsolescence. Does anyone
As per our recent thread, there's load of (recent, modern) stuff that
still uses NetBIOS. Sadly.
actually run "2000"
Just fyi,
some talk about Extensions of the Bonjoure Protocol Suite few days ago;
Date: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 9:11 AM
The mdnsext BoF is today at 15:20 US Eastern Time. The agenda is below.
Slides are available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/85/materials.html.
Remote participat
It is? I always see localhost.localdomain when it's spelled out completely.
I've never seen anything .localhost (and then my guess is that if it is, it's
not meant to be used except for one host by itself).
- Original Message -
From: John Miller [mailto:johnm...@brandeis.edu]
Sent: We
Thanks for the catch--guess I was writing a little too quickly this
morning. .localhost is reserved; .localdomain isn't.
John
On 11/14/2012 11:17 AM, SM wrote:
At 07:15 14-11-2012, John Miller wrote:
It doesn't look like .local is officially reserved
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2606), bu
At 07:15 14-11-2012, John Miller wrote:
It doesn't look like .local is officially reserved
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2606), but .localdomain definitely is.
.localdomain is not reserved.
Regards,
-sm
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mail
Hello,
I started to see a flood of these errors after upgrading to the latest
BIND 9.9.2:
14-Nov-2012 17:14:15.304 general: warning: RSA_verify failed
14-Nov-2012 17:14:15.304 general: info: error:04077068:rsa
routines:RSA_verify:bad
signature:/usr/src/secure/lib/libcrypto/../../../crypto/op
On 11/14/2012 10:08 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
King, Harold Clyde (Hal) wrote:
I'm a bit confused by a user request. I think he is trying to keep some
hosts on the private side of DNS, but he wants to use a DNS name like
host.sub.local. I do not know of the use of the .local TLD except in
bonjure.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/14/2012 10:09 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
> King, Harold Clyde (Hal) wrote:
>
>> I'm a bit confused by a user request. I think he is trying to
>> keep some hosts on the private side of DNS, but he wants to use a
>> DNS name like host.sub.local. I do
The .local TLD is "reserved" for link-local names, in the context of
multicast DNS ("mDNS"), however, I don't think mDNS has progressed
beyond the Internet Draft stage of the IETF Standards Track process. See
http://www.multicastdns.org for latest updates.
It would be imprudent to use .local f
Hey there Hal,
It doesn't look like .local is officially reserved
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2606), but .localdomain definitely is.
John
John Miller
Systems Engineer
Brandeis University
781-736-4619
johnm...@brandeis.edu
On 11/14/2012 10:02 AM, King, Harold Clyde (Hal) wrote:
I'm a bit
King, Harold Clyde (Hal) wrote:
> I'm a bit confused by a user request. I think he is trying to keep some
> hosts on the private side of DNS, but he wants to use a DNS name like
> host.sub.local. I do not know of the use of the .local TLD except in
> bonjure. Can anyone shed some light on the use
I'm a bit confused by a user request. I think he is trying to keep some hosts
on the private side of DNS, but he wants to use a DNS name like host.sub.local.
I do not know of the use of the .local TLD except in bonjure. Can anyone shed
some light on the use of the .local TLD?
--
Hal King - h..
17 matches
Mail list logo
