> Didn't the answer to the NS query include the addresses in the Additional
> Section? It does when I perform the query manually. It gets cut off with
> the default packet size, but if EDNS0 is used it will include them all.
The addresses are included in the additional section. Missed that ear
In article ,
"Spain, Dr. Jeffry A." wrote:
> >> No, it requires a rebuild after changing lib/dns/rootns.c. But using a
> >> mildly out-of-date hints file is usually harmless - it is only a *hint*.
>
> > Right. One of the first things BIND does after starting up is query one of
> > the root se
>> No, it requires a rebuild after changing lib/dns/rootns.c. But using a
>> mildly out-of-date hints file is usually harmless - it is only a *hint*.
> Right. One of the first things BIND does after starting up is query one of
> the root servers to get the current set of root servers.
Thanks. T
Spain, Dr. Jeffry A. wrote:
>
> Would you please elaborate on how you are managing your bogon-related
> empty zones.
I have bogon declarations and empty zones for all the ranges listed in RFC
5735 except 224.0.0.0/4 which only has a bogon declaration. (The multicast
addresses shouldn't be used fo
>> If the root hints are updated on ftp://rs.internic.net/domain/, would
>> it require a new build of bind to incorporate them, or is bind able to
>> update its built-in root hints by some other means?
> No, it requires a rebuild after changing lib/dns/rootns.c. But using a mildly
> out-of-date
In article ,
Chris Thompson wrote:
> On Mar 1 2012, Spain, Dr. Jeffry A. wrote:
>
> [...]
> >Also I see that bind 9.9.0 uses built-in root hints if those are not
> >explicitly configured.
>
> That has been true since BIND 9.2.
>
> >If the root hints are updated on ftp://rs.internic.net/domain
On Mar 1 2012, Spain, Dr. Jeffry A. wrote:
[...]
Also I see that bind 9.9.0 uses built-in root hints if those are not
explicitly configured.
That has been true since BIND 9.2.
If the root hints are updated on ftp://rs.internic.net/domain/, would it
require a new build of bind to incorporate
> In my named.conf I have set up empty zones for the whole of 240/4. I view RFC
> 6303 as the minimum necessary for a hygienic name server, but there are a
> number of other permanent bogon address ranges which it makes sense to stub
> out locally.
Would you please elaborate on how you are mana
>> Just for clarification, do I understand correctly that if none of the
>> empty zones described in RFC 6303 are set up explicitly in the bind
>> 9.9.0 configuration file, then bind 9.9.0 will process them as such
>> anyway using built-in generic zone processing rules?
> Yes. To expand a bit
Spain, Dr. Jeffry A. wrote:
> Which of these alternative empty zones should be used in the current DNS
> environment and why?
In my named.conf I have set up empty zones for the whole of 240/4. I view
RFC 6303 as the minimum necessary for a hygienic name server, but there
are a number of other pe
> Just for clarification, do I understand correctly that if none of the
> empty zones described in RFC 6303 are set up explicitly in the bind 9.9.0
> configuration file, then bind 9.9.0 will process them as such anyway
> using built-in generic zone processing rules?
Yes. To expand a bit on Mark's
Mark Andrews writes:
>
> In message <7610864823c0d04d89342623a3adc9de2e339...@hopple.countryday.net>,
> "S
> pain, Dr. Jeffry A." writes:
> > >> Changing the second line ('@ 10800 IN NS @') to '@ 10800 IN NS localhost
> =
> > .' eliminates the errors.
> > > The built in empty zone processing is
In message <7610864823c0d04d89342623a3adc9de2e339...@hopple.countryday.net>, "S
pain, Dr. Jeffry A." writes:
> >> Changing the second line ('@ 10800 IN NS @') to '@ 10800 IN NS localhost=
> .' eliminates the errors.
> > The built in empty zone processing is aware of the special case of NS rec=
> o
>> Changing the second line ('@ 10800 IN NS @') to '@ 10800 IN NS localhost.'
>> eliminates the errors.
> The built in empty zone processing is aware of the special case of NS records
> without address records. The generic zone processing rules treat this as a
> error condition.
Just for clari
In message <7610864823c0d04d89342623a3adc9de2e339...@hopple.countryday.net>, "Sp
ain, Dr. Jeffry A." writes:
> I reviewed RFC 6303, which recommends configuring a number of zones using a=
> n empty zone file as follows:
>
> @ 10800 IN SOA @ nobody.invalid. 1 3600 1200 604800 10800
> @ 10800 IN NS
I reviewed RFC 6303, which recommends configuring a number of zones using an
empty zone file as follows:
@ 10800 IN SOA @ nobody.invalid. 1 3600 1200 604800 10800
@ 10800 IN NS @
In bind 9.9.0 this results in errors for each zone referring to the empty zone
file as follows:
Feb 29 19:24:30 ns0s
16 matches
Mail list logo
