On 11/05/2015 10:13 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> The UPDATE standard say ANY of the nameservers but to prefer the
> server which matches the MNAME.
I have yet to find a DNS server that will support updates to a slave
server out of the box.
Bind slave servers can easily be configured forward Dynamic
In message <563c3477.6070...@tnetconsulting.net>, Grant Taylor writes:
> On 11/05/2015 03:44 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > You may want to add a "_dns-update._udp.example.net SRV" record
> > pointing to the nameservers as someone convinced the router vendor(s)
> > that this is how you do it rather t
On 11/05/2015 03:44 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> You may want to add a "_dns-update._udp.example.net SRV" record
> pointing to the nameservers as someone convinced the router vendor(s)
> that this is how you do it rather than that being a override to the
> default of just sending to the nameservers f
On 11/05/2015 05:56 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> If you remove the "allow-update { any; };" named doesn't treat the
> file as writeable. It's not file permissions. It's whether named
> will potentially update the file itself or not.
Oh! Thanks for the clarification!
signature.asc
Description: O
In message <563c015c.1020...@gmail.com>, Kenneth Lakin writes:
>
> On 11/05/2015 04:32 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > RPZ zones are hooked deeper into the view than just a single
> > attachment point. There is lots of auxillary data that needs to
> > be built and maintained at the view level with b
On 11/05/2015 04:32 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> RPZ zones are hooked deeper into the view than just a single
> attachment point. There is lots of auxillary data that needs to
> be built and maintained at the view level with back references.
> Sharing this is hard and has not been done.
So, I gather
RPZ zones are hooked deeper into the view than just a single
attachment point. There is lots of auxillary data that needs to
be built and maintained at the view level with back references.
Sharing this is hard and has not been done.
Now if someone want's to spend the time to code the necessary s
Hi Kenneth
I'm also struggling with the in-view clause and RPZ zones at this moment,
documentation says that the in-view clause can't be used in policy zones,
and I really don't know why is that programmed that way, it shouldn't
matter if it t's a regular zone or a rpz zone.
I'm using the 9.10.3
Why doesn't BIND accept the in-view option for RPZ zone definitions?
named-checkconf has no problem with it, but BIND chokes on startup.
I'm running BIND 9.10.2-P4 from Gentoo Linux's net-dns/bind-9.10.2_p4
package. Has this been fixed in a later version? Am I doing something
really silly?
Detail
In message <201511051124.03206.boobe...@rogers.com>, Bill writes:
> Yes, to do a full implementation usable in an enterprise you are correct, but
>
> what I am looking for is a small demo with only 10 machines or so. I believe
>
> your comment about IPv5 is correct too, but I am limited for t
Yes, to do a full implementation usable in an enterprise you are correct, but
what I am looking for is a small demo with only 10 machines or so. I believe
your comment about IPv5 is correct too, but I am limited for this trial.
/bill
On Wednesday 04 November 2015 15:30, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
