Re: is NS record pointing to "some other name server" needed in case of classless IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations?

2013-04-03 Thread Doug Barton
On 04/02/2013 12:47 AM, Martin T wrote: Is NS record pointing to "some other name server" needed in case of classless IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations? What happens if one does not specify this? It's very common for the parent name server(s) to slave the 2317 zone so that it can

Re: is NS record pointing to "some other name server" needed in case of classless IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations?

2013-04-03 Thread Mark Andrews
ssless IN-ADDR.ARPA > delegations(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2317.txt) I have usually seen > at least one NS record pointing to name server other than the > end-customer ones. Example from rfc2317.txt where there are two NS > records and the second one is not the end-customer name serve

is NS record pointing to "some other name server" needed in case of classless IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations?

2013-04-03 Thread Martin T
Hi, in case of classless IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2317.txt) I have usually seen at least one NS record pointing to name server other than the end-customer ones. Example from rfc2317.txt where there are two NS records and the second one is not the end-customer name

Re: Delegations

2012-11-01 Thread Chris Buxton
On Oct 31, 2012, at 2:31 PM, Kevin Darcy wrote: > I know of at least 2 commerically-available DNS maintenance systems that, by > default, do not allow what they call "dotted hostnames", by which they mean a > name which is at least 2 labels below a zone cut, e.g. "foo.bar" in the > "example.com"

Re: Delegations

2012-11-01 Thread Chris Buxton
On Oct 31, 2012, at 4:02 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > On 10/31/2012 03:56 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: >> You are equating a practice that was techically wrong, and known >> to be wrong from the get go, with one that has never been techically >> wrong. > > Yes, I'm making exactly the same judgment that typ

Re: Delegations

2012-11-01 Thread WBrown
Jan-Piet Mens wrote on 11/01/2012 07:09:14 AM: > > YPYMAYTYP > > Zero results from my favorite search engine -- congratulations. ;-) Yeah, and bing didn't find it either! :) Confidentiality Notice: This electronic message and any attachments may contain confidential or privileged informat

Re: Delegations

2012-11-01 Thread Sam Wilson
In article , Jan-Piet Mens wrote: > > YPYMAYTYP > > Zero results from my favorite search engine -- congratulations. ;-) Thank you. Try YPYMAYTYC but I was thinking pick. Sam -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

Re: Delegations

2012-11-01 Thread Jan-Piet Mens
> YPYMAYTYP Zero results from my favorite search engine -- congratulations. ;-) -JP ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists

Re: Delegations

2012-11-01 Thread Sam Wilson
x27;s > > technically right/wrong/indifferent not withstanding, doesn't mean that > > it's good advice for the average user. > > > > Doug > > Putting in delegations where they are not needed introduces additional > work and more places that can go wrong.

Re: Delegations

2012-10-31 Thread Mark Andrews
> Yes, I'm making exactly the same judgment that typical users make. "It > works, so it must be Ok." > > The fact that we ("experts") can get away with something, whether it's > technically right/wrong/indifferent not withstanding, doesn't mean

Re: Delegations

2012-10-31 Thread Doug Barton
On 10/31/2012 03:56 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > You are equating a practice that was techically wrong, and known > to be wrong from the get go, with one that has never been techically > wrong. Yes, I'm making exactly the same judgment that typical users make. "It works, so it must be Ok." The fact

Re: Delegations

2012-10-31 Thread Mark Andrews
In message <5091a8bc.70...@dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes: > On 10/31/2012 03:22 PM, Chris Thompson wrote: > > On Oct 31 2012, Kevin Darcy wrote: > > > > [...snip...] > >> I know of at least 2 commerically-available DNS maintenance systems > >> that, by default, do not allow what they call "d

Re: Delegations

2012-10-31 Thread Doug Barton
On 10/31/2012 03:22 PM, Chris Thompson wrote: > On Oct 31 2012, Kevin Darcy wrote: > > [...snip...] >> I know of at least 2 commerically-available DNS maintenance systems >> that, by default, do not allow what they call "dotted hostnames", by >> which they mean a name which is at least 2 labels be

Re: Delegations

2012-10-31 Thread Chris Thompson
On Oct 31 2012, Kevin Darcy wrote: [...snip...] I know of at least 2 commerically-available DNS maintenance systems that, by default, do not allow what they call "dotted hostnames", by which they mean a name which is at least 2 labels below a zone cut, e.g. "foo.bar" in the "example.com" zone. T

Re: Delegations

2012-10-31 Thread Chris Thompson
reates "l2.example.com" as a sub-zone? Why it this necessary / safer? It certainly isn't necessary. We have plenty of zone cuts more than one label deep into the parent zone. And of course such delegations are *extremely* common in the reverse lookup trees, with the IPv6 one probably

Re: Delegations

2012-10-31 Thread Kevin Darcy
On 10/31/2012 5:15 PM, Phil Mayers wrote: On 10/31/2012 06:51 PM, Doug Barton wrote: It may or may not be strictly necessary to do this depending on everything else you have in the zone, but it's safer in the long term to do it this way. Are you suggesting it's best of the OP creates "l2.exam

Re: Delegations

2012-10-31 Thread Phil Mayers
On 10/31/2012 06:51 PM, Doug Barton wrote: It may or may not be strictly necessary to do this depending on everything else you have in the zone, but it's safer in the long term to do it this way. Are you suggesting it's best of the OP creates "l2.example.com" as a sub-zone? Why it this nece

Re: Delegations

2012-10-31 Thread Doug Barton
On 10/31/2012 10:12 AM, wbr...@e1b.org wrote: > I have a zone file for example.org that has entries for a subdomain > l2.example.org like this: > > vpn.l2 IN A10.1.2.3 > > Now they want to add a subdomain below l2, ie. ad.l2.eboces.org with hosts > such as dc.ad.l2.eboces.org A

Re: Delegations

2012-10-31 Thread WBrown
Phil wrote on 10/31/2012 02:15:16 PM: > You terminology is a bit confusing here. "subdomain" is imprecise. Sorry, I meant it as a piece of the FQDN. > Specify what *zones* you want, and where you want the delegations, and > it should be easy to see what will work and no

Re: Delegations

2012-10-31 Thread Tony Finch
Phil Mayers wrote: > > No. Zone cuts can be at any label inside a zone. Provided "inside" does not include the zone apex :-) Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/ Forties, Cromarty: East, veering southeast, 4 or 5, occasionally 6 at first. Rough, becoming slight or moderate. Showers, r

Re: Delegations

2012-10-31 Thread Phil Mayers
is a bit confusing here. "subdomain" is imprecise. Specify what *zones* you want, and where you want the delegations, and it should be easy to see what will work and not. example.org SOA www.example.org A <- hostname, in example.org zone vpn.l2.example.org A <- ho

Delegations

2012-10-31 Thread WBrown
I have a zone file for example.org that has entries for a subdomain l2.example.org like this: vpn.l2 IN A10.1.2.3 Now they want to add a subdomain below l2, ie. ad.l2.eboces.org with hosts such as dc.ad.l2.eboces.org In the zone file for example.org, I can add NS and glue recor

RE: minimal-responses yes; to prevent downstream MS DNS server following DNS delegations

2011-05-03 Thread Spain, Dr. Jeffry A.
inistrator Cincinnati Country Day School Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 4:16 AM To: bind-users@lists.isc.org Subject: minimal-responses yes; to prevent downstream MS DNS server following DNS delegations > My main goal is to prevent the internal MS DNS server f

minimal-responses yes; to prevent downstream MS DNS server following DNS delegations

2011-05-03 Thread Sven Emil Skretteberg
DNS server. My main goal is to prevent the internal MS DNS server from trying to communicate with DNS servers outside the internal network zone following delegations. Such communication will be dropped in firewalls. Instead I want the internal MS DNS server to follow the generic DNS forwarding

Re: Name resolution follows forwarders instead of delegations on master server

2010-01-27 Thread Kevin Darcy
wrote: Taylor, Gord wrote: I've noticed that if I have default forwarders setup in the options section of my named.conf, then BIND (9.4.1-P1) will forward to these servers rather than following the delegations for zones where it's authoritative (verified via sniffer trace). Is this true

Re: Name resolution follows forwarders instead of delegations on master server

2010-01-27 Thread Cathy Almond
Taylor, Gord wrote: > I've noticed that if I have default forwarders setup in the options > section of my named.conf, then BIND (9.4.1-P1) will forward to these > servers rather than following the delegations for zones where it's > authoritative (verified via sniffer trace

Name resolution follows forwarders instead of delegations on master server

2010-01-26 Thread Taylor, Gord
I've noticed that if I have default forwarders setup in the options section of my named.conf, then BIND (9.4.1-P1) will forward to these servers rather than following the delegations for zones where it's authoritative (verified via sniffer trace). Is this true of all BIND versions?

Re: unwanted delegations was: What to do about openDNS

2009-01-21 Thread Matthew Pounsett
On 21-Jan-2009, at 03:23 , Scott Haneda wrote: On Jan 20, 2009, at 6:42 PM, Matthew Pounsett wrote: Registries that implement host records (so, at least the gTLDs) could accept the word of the registrant of the zone that contains a name server (or the word of their registrar on their behal

Re: unwanted delegations was: What to do about openDNS

2009-01-21 Thread Scott Haneda
my NS. Sometimes, the client lapses hosting with me, and I delete the zones. They usually leave the domain reg'd and my NS's listed. The system should recognise the rights of nameserver operators. There should be some process by which unwanted delegations can be removed. Obvio

Re: unwanted delegations was: What to do about openDNS

2009-01-20 Thread Matthew Pounsett
, and I delete the zones. They usually leave the domain reg'd and my NS's listed. The system should recognise the rights of nameserver operators. There should be some process by which unwanted delegations can be removed. Obviously doing this on the basis of an email is not a good i

unwanted delegations was: What to do about openDNS

2009-01-20 Thread Danny Thomas
domain reg'd and my NS's listed. The system should recognise the rights of nameserver operators. There should be some process by which unwanted delegations can be removed. Obviously doing this on the basis of an email is not a good idea, but perhaps the nameserver operator can publish th