Re: 9.9.3-P2

2013-06-24 Thread Mike Hoskins (michoski)
fwd to spare the list further responses :-) -Original Message- From: Mike Hoskins Date: Monday, June 24, 2013 4:59 PM To: "sgra...@isc.org" Subject: Re: 9.9.3-P2 >-Original Message- > >From: Sue Graves >Organization: Internet Systems Consortium >Reply-To: "sgra...@isc.org" >D

Re: 9.9.3-P2

2013-06-24 Thread staticsafe
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 08:46:57PM +, Mike Hoskins (michoski) wrote: > i'm probably the last to notice, but first...good work on the site > redesign. nice and clean. > > > generating a new internal package for 9.9.3, and going through the > site/request form i get directed here: > > http://

9.9.3-P2

2013-06-24 Thread Mike Hoskins (michoski)
i'm probably the last to notice, but first...good work on the site redesign. nice and clean. generating a new internal package for 9.9.3, and going through the site/request form i get directed here: http://www.isc.org/wp-content/plugins/email-before-download/download.php?dl =7a5b7f9dbac01f45b0f

Re: Secondary DNS question...

2013-06-24 Thread Lawrence K. Chen, P.Eng.
dnsviz.net was able to get response from both...looking at the "Response" section for SOA shows some differences. Let's see if I can copy/paste it... Guess not Responses for starionline.com/SOA - Status Returned by

Re: Loopback configuration

2013-06-24 Thread Lawrence K. Chen, P.Eng.
It doesn't change the statement if the mailserver is requiring its forward and reverses to match. Our DNS at work provides reverses for portions of 10/18, 172.16/12 and 192.168/16 for various reasons, including that our backup system requires forwards and reverses to match. - Original Mess

Re: bind 2.1a3 on centos 6.4

2013-06-24 Thread Brian Cuttler
Chris, Looks like 3.0a2-1 understands views statement. Not sure if there is a newer version, but this will do the deed. thank you, Brian On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:21:17AM -0700, Chris Buxton wrote

Re: bind 2.1a3 on centos 6.4

2013-06-24 Thread Brian Cuttler
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 09:40:36AM -0700, Chris Buxton wrote: > On Jun 22, 2013, at 12:50 PM, "Lawrence K. Chen, P.Eng." > wrote: > > > Or don't use nslint? > > +1 > > Use 'named-checkconf -z' instead. Or run it without '-z', and then use > 'named-checkzone' against each zone file, with suita

Re: bind 2.1a3 on centos 6.4

2013-06-24 Thread Chris Buxton
On Jun 24, 2013, at 10:09 AM, Brian Cuttler wrote: > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 09:40:36AM -0700, Chris Buxton wrote: >> On Jun 22, 2013, at 12:50 PM, "Lawrence K. Chen, P.Eng." >> wrote: >> >>> Or don't use nslint? >> >> +1 >> >> Use 'named-checkconf -z' instead. Or run it without '-z', and the

Re: bind 2.1a3 on centos 6.4

2013-06-24 Thread Chris Buxton
On Jun 22, 2013, at 12:50 PM, "Lawrence K. Chen, P.Eng." wrote: > Or don't use nslint? +1 Use 'named-checkconf -z' instead. Or run it without '-z', and then use 'named-checkzone' against each zone file, with suitable options to tweak the tests to meet your needs. Chris __

Re: bind 2.1a3 on centos 6.4

2013-06-24 Thread Brian Cuttler
Thank you, that explains a lot. Had assumed that the one nslint # yum found would be at least somewhat current. Will see if I can't find a newer one to install. thank you, Brian On Sat, Jun 22, 201

Re: Secondary DNS question...

2013-06-24 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 24.06.13 07:41, Frank Bulk wrote: Interesting to note that querying for ANY does return an SOA. I can't explain that behavior. I can guess a kind of DNS filter/firewall. Some l3 switches or load balancers tend to produce strange results too... From: bind-users-bounces+frnkblk=iname@li

RE: Secondary DNS question...

2013-06-24 Thread Frank Bulk
Interesting to note that querying for ANY does return an SOA. I can't explain that behavior. C:\>dig ANY starionline.com @ns1.starionhost.net ; <<>> DiG 9.8.0-P1 <<>> ANY starionline.com @ns1.starionhost.net ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<-

Re: How to suppress ADDITIONAL SECTION per zone

2013-06-24 Thread Steven Carr
On 24 June 2013 08:14, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > You still have not answered my question, so I repeat it: > >>> > What is the point of your question? > I think what Matus wants to know is your reasoning/problem/issue about not returning records from the cache for those zones? The answer is

Re: How to suppress ADDITIONAL SECTION per zone

2013-06-24 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On Friday, June 21, 2013 11:26:25 AM UTC-7, Lawrence K. Chen, P.Eng. wrote: I thought I had read somewhere (which I can't locate), that additional-from-auth can be used in global or view scope. On 23.06.13 23:25, blrmaani wrote: Yes, works in Global view. I am trying to prevent additional rec