Re: Strange CNAME issue

2010-01-21 Thread Mark Andrews
In message , seren writes: > > Thanks for your response. I didn't know about the +trace option in dig. = > After some more searching, I believe you are correct about the long = > responses being related. The responses that fail all seem to exceed = > 512-bytes. Why this would happen in multiple l

Re: Strange CNAME issue

2010-01-21 Thread seren
Thanks for your response. I didn't know about the +trace option in dig. After some more searching, I believe you are correct about the long responses being related. The responses that fail all seem to exceed 512-bytes. Why this would happen in multiple locations is a mystery but perhaps our fire

Re: Strange CNAME issue

2010-01-20 Thread Niall O'Reilly
seren wrote: Hi, I've run into some strange issues with BIND and CNAMES. The examples you show indicate strange issues only with whatever name server code is running on your localhost. Nothing in your examples actually identify this as BIND. We're using BIND9 (on Ubunt

Strange CNAME issue

2010-01-19 Thread seren
Hi, I've run into some strange issues with BIND and CNAMES. We're using BIND9 (on Ubuntu) internally and have our external DNS hosted by NetworkSolutions. Occasionally I'll be able to create a CNAME in NetworkSolutions that BIND is unable to resolve. Using dig I notice it's doing a query for an