I thought the missing line meant keep the origin, though I've used this
missing line to add multiple A records to things before, so I don't know
why exactly I was thinking this.
Thanks for the clarification.
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:31:55AM -0500, John Ratliff wrote:
>> Im trying to delegat
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:31:55AM -0500, John Ratliff wrote:
> Im trying to delegate a subdomain to another BIND server, but
> when I add the NS record, some of the records stop working. I was
> hoping someone could help me figure out why.
It's simple.
> Here is a zone file that demonstrates
Hi,
On 16.02.17 17:31 John Ratliff wrote:
> IN NS ipa-test-client.example.com.
> idm IN NS ipa1.example.com.
>
> IN MX 50 spamfw.example.com.
>
> IN A 10.9.6.54
I could be totally wrong, but doesn't an empty first column use the
first column of the last entry? So yo
Im trying to delegate a subdomain to another BIND server, but when I add
the NS record, some of the records stop working. I was hoping someone
could help me figure out why.
Here is a zone file that demonstrates the problem for example.com. Its
running on a CentOS 7 system with BIND 9.9.4. I saw
Hi, in my lan domain im trying to delegate subzones to others name
servers, but im failing hard.
Lets say domain "acme":
ns1.acme server, file acme.zone:
$TTL604800
@ IN SOA ns1.acme. admin.acme. (
19 ; Serial
In article ,
Mark Hedges wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > >
> > > The scenario is a farm of sendmail + RBL servers that
> > > have independent management and databases, but a single
> > > bind server. Sendmail etc. would do a lookup of
> > > 78.56.34.12.rbl.localdomain an
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Barry Margolin wrote:
> >
> > The scenario is a farm of sendmail + RBL servers that
> > have independent management and databases, but a single
> > bind server. Sendmail etc. would do a lookup of
> > 78.56.34.12.rbl.localdomain and it would look at
> > localhost on 127.0.0.2
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Barry Margolin wrote:
> >
> > The scenario is a farm of sendmail + RBL servers that
> > have independent management and databases, but a single
> > bind server. Sendmail etc. would do a lookup of
> > 78.56.34.12.rbl.localdomain and it would look at
> > localhost on 127.0.0.2,
In article ,
Mark Hedges wrote:
> Hi...
>
> Is it possible to configure .localdomain to delegate a
> subdomain to 127.0.0.2, so that the client then tries to do
> a lookup from that localhost address on itself?
>
> The scenario is a farm of sendmail + RBL servers that have
> independent manage
Hi...
Is it possible to configure .localdomain to delegate a
subdomain to 127.0.0.2, so that the client then tries to do
a lookup from that localhost address on itself?
The scenario is a farm of sendmail + RBL servers that have
independent management and databases, but a single bind
server. Sen
n is what you want? You describe your server as a
recursive server, which implies that it is not authoritative for anything. In
that case, rather than delegating, you want to configure the resolver
algorithm. The simplest way to do this is with a stub zone:
zone "lan" {
type stub;
Hello everyone!
I would like to ask you if anyone can point me to some more information
about configuring BIND to delegate a whole "artificial" top level domain to
another nameserver.
This far it has been a classical configuration, recursive nameserver for
local clients behind the NAT. Now I woul
On Dec 15, 2009, at 11:42 AM, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article ,
> Chris Buxton wrote:
>
>> It's not a valid delegation unless you control the parent zone.
>>
>> ARIN is delegating the /24 reverse zone to you. You therefore have four
>> options that
Simon Dodd wrote:
> Thanks for the replies, everyone; I think the consensus is that having
> ARIN redelegate is the correct solution, and that's fine by me. (As
> mentioned, my marching orders were to do this without redelegating, but
> if that's the correct way to do it, I can make that case.)
It
e those in
> at ns*.midwestern.com. So you are in fact claiming to be something
> like a "stealth slave" for the zone, but you are still authoritative,
> and the rest of the world is going to believe your responses saying
> that the PTR records don't exist.
>
>
> Mutat
in fact claiming to be something
like a "stealth slave" for the zone, but you are still authoritative,
and the rest of the world is going to believe your responses saying
that the PTR records don't exist.
Mutatis mutandis, that's the configuration that Albitz & Liu show for
de
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 02:42:37PM -0500, Barry Margolin wrote:
...
> A fifth option is to use RFC 2317-style classless delegation for all 256
> entries in the reverse domain:
>
> $GENERATE 0-255 $ IN CNAME $.0/24
> 0/24 IN NS ns1.midwestfirst.com.
> 0/24 IN NS ns2.midwestfirst.co
> fair game, so here's how I configured the zone:
...
I'm sorry! I read that too quickly the first time.
The simpler answer is, instead of delegating to YOU, have the owner of
134.63.in-addr.arpa delegate to MidwestFirst.
If you do not wish to do this, then DON'T have a zo
In article ,
Chris Buxton wrote:
> It's not a valid delegation unless you control the parent zone.
>
> ARIN is delegating the /24 reverse zone to you. You therefore have four
> options that give control of the PTR records to the midwestfirst.com servers.
A fifth option i
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 01:52:50PM -0500, Simon Dodd wrote:
> I'm having a problem configuring a delegation. We have various /24s for
> which we provide PTR records. If I create a zone file for
> 188.134.63.in-addr.arpa and add PTR records, they resolve just fine. In
> other words, if this is my zo
.midwestfirst.com
<http://ns1.midwestfirst.com>.
IN NS ns2.midwestfirst.com
<http://ns2.midwestfirst.com>.
Mutatis mutandis, that's the configuration that Albitz & Liu show for
delegating forward lookup zones (p. 232). It isn't quite how they sh
It's not a valid delegation unless you control the parent zone.
ARIN is delegating the /24 reverse zone to you. You therefore have four options
that give control of the PTR records to the midwestfirst.com servers.
Option 1: Ask ARIN to change the delegation. This is the most "corre
westfirst.com.
Mutatis mutandis, that's the configuration that Albitz & Liu show for
delegating forward lookup zones (p. 232). It isn't quite how they show
reverse lookup zones (more on this in a moment), and unfortunately, it
doesn't work:
[r...@linux1 joink-domains]# dig -x 63.
On 18/08/09 20:32, Kevin Darcy wrote:
No, you can't do a "sideways" delegation like that.
The correct solution, as stated elsewhere, is to get
251.250.63.in-addr.arpa delegated directly from ARIN to the customer.
Strictly speaking it is legal to use DNAME at the apex of a zone since
DNAME onl
ginal Message-
> From: bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org [mailto:bind-users-
> boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Darcy
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:33 PM
> To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> Subject: Re: FW: Delegating reverse DNS to a customer
>
> bsfin...@anl.gov wrote:
&
bsfin...@anl.gov wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Tim Huffman
wrote:
Guys,
We're a smallish (but growing) ISP, and we've been asked by one of our
customers to delegate reverse DNS for 63.250.251.0/24 to their DNS servers,
ns1.emns.com - ns4.emns.com. Unfortunately, we've never had t
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Tim Huffman
wrote:
> Guys,
>
>
>
> We're a smallish (but growing) ISP, and we've been asked by one of our
> customers to delegate reverse DNS for 63.250.251.0/24 to their DNS servers,
> ns1.emns.com - ns4.emns.com. Unfortunately, we've never had to delegate DNS
> to
In message , Chris Hills writes:
> On 18/08/09 15:55, Ben Bridges wrote:
> > Since the CIDR block you have been allocated containing 63.250.251.0/24
> > is smaller than a /16, ARIN is delegating authority for the IN-ADDR.ARPA
> > zones for each of your /24's directly to
On 18/08/09 15:55, Ben Bridges wrote:
Since the CIDR block you have been allocated containing 63.250.251.0/24
is smaller than a /16, ARIN is delegating authority for the IN-ADDR.ARPA
zones for each of your /24's directly to your dns servers. In order for
your customer's dns ser
Since the CIDR block you have been allocated containing 63.250.251.0/24
is smaller than a /16, ARIN is delegating authority for the IN-ADDR.ARPA
zones for each of your /24's directly to your dns servers. In order for
your customer's dns servers to be authoritative for
251.250.63.IN
Thanks for your help!
> > -Original Message-
> > From: aad [mailto:ali.da...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 8:13 AM
> > To: Tim Huffman
> > Subject: Re: Delegating reverse DNS to a customer
> >
> > Hi Tim,
> >
> > Gi
The issue is probably that you need to delegate the 251.250.63.in-addr.arpa
to your client in the 250.63.in-addr.arpa zone.
If you load 251.250.63.in-addr.arpa to try and delegate it, your servers
will answer for it because they load it.
Think of it in the same mind of delegating a forward
Guys,
We're a smallish (but growing) ISP, and we've been asked by one of our
customers to delegate reverse DNS for 63.250.251.0/24 to their DNS servers,
ns1.emns.com - ns4.emns.com. Unfortunately, we've never had to delegate DNS to
a customer before, and we're having problems getting it to work
Davenport, Steve M" wrote, in part,
Hello,
>We have nameservers supporting utmck.edu and delegate the zones used by
>Windows to Windows nameservers as follows:
>
>...
>
>When I do a nslookup or dig I only see the first two servers and not
>sec2:
>--
>ns-1: nslookup
>> se
When I do a nslookup or dig I only see the first two servers and not sec2:
--
ns-1: nslookup
set type=ns
_tcp.utmck.edu
Non-authoritative answer:
_tcp.utmck.edu nameserver = pri1.utmck.edu
_tcp.utmck.edu nameserver = sec1.utmck.edu
Authoritative answers can be found
Hello,
We have nameservers supporting utmck.edu and delegate the zones used by
Windows to Windows nameservers as follows:
$ORIGIN utmck.edu.
_tcp IN NS pri1.utmck.edu.
IN NS sec1.utmck.edu.
_udp IN NS pri1.utmck.edu.
IN NS
In article , blrmaani
wrote:
> Thanks.. so if I dig further deeper on this it appears that the the
> query being sent to the subdomain's
> nameserver is NON-RECURSIVE. So, if the resource-records are already
> cached on the subdomain's nameserver (assuming non-authoritative
> nameserver here), t
blrmaani wrote:
> I have configured my named (BIND-9) to delegate a subdomain owned by
> our partner company.
It's not clear to me what you're saying here. Can you explain in more
detail? It's always better to use the real names, but if you can't,
make up something that is clear.
> The queries in
In message <937b61bf-c12f-4498-b20c-8cd5613bd...@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
blrmaani writes:
> I have configured my named (BIND-9) to delegate a subdomain owned by
> our partner company. The queries in the subdomain are failing
> intermittently.
>
> Our partner company IT team is not ready to
Thanks.. so if I dig further deeper on this it appears that the the
query being sent to the subdomain's
nameserver is NON-RECURSIVE. So, if the resource-records are already
cached on the subdomain's nameserver (assuming non-authoritative
nameserver here), then the queries are responded else the que
On 10.01.09 14:04, blrmaani wrote:
> When we delegate a subdomain, should the nameserver to which we delegate
> be AUTHORITATIVE?
yes
> What happens if the nameserver to which we delegate the subdomain is a
> NON-AUTHORITATIVE nameserver (eg., cache-only name server ). ? Could this
> be the reaso
I have configured my named (BIND-9) to delegate a subdomain owned by
our partner company. The queries in the subdomain are failing
intermittently.
Our partner company IT team is not ready to reveal their DNS
configuration.
When we delegate a subdomain, should the nameserver to which we
delegate
b
42 matches
Mail list logo