In message
, jagan padhi writes:
>
> Hi,
>
> Is it possible to configure BIND for IPV4 and IPV6 in the same server?
>
> Regards,
> Jagan
Yes. listen-on-v6 { any; };
By default it use both IPv4 and IPv6 when recursing.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
P
-Original Message-
From: jagan padhi
Date: Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:21 PM
To: DNS BIND
Subject: Re: transparent DNS load-balancing with a Cisco ACE
>Hi,
>
>Is it possible to configure BIND for IPV4 and IPV6 in the same server?
>
>Regards,
>Jagan
Yes, we'v
Hi,
Is it possible to configure BIND for IPV4 and IPV6 in the same server?
Regards,
Jagan
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:35 PM, John Miller wrote:
> Thanks, Phil. This makes perfect sense--unlike TCP, there's nothing
> inherent in UDP to make sure that packets come back from the right IP.
>
> T
Thanks, Phil. This makes perfect sense--unlike TCP, there's nothing
inherent in UDP to make sure that packets come back from the right IP.
Thank you also for explaining this in terms of the socket APIs. This is
something I've only barely touched on--time for me to play around a bit
and write
On 10/19/2012 07:25 PM, John Miller wrote:
Here's a question, however: how does one get probes working for a
transparent LB setup? If an rserver listens for connections on all
interfaces, then probes work fine, but return traffic from the uses the
machine's default IP (not the VIP that was orig
-Original Message-
From: Chuck Swiger
Date: Friday, October 19, 2012 5:09 PM
To: John Miller
Cc: DNS BIND
Subject: Re: transparent DNS load-balancing with a Cisco ACE
>>
>> We're on a /16, so we have plenty of public IPs (though not as many as
>>you!) to play
Hi--
On Oct 19, 2012, at 1:04 PM, John Miller wrote:
>> IMO, the only boxes which should have IPs in both public and private
>> netblocks should be your firewall/NAT routing boxes.
>
> That's how we usually have our servers set up--the load balancer gets the
> public IPs, the servers get the pr
Thanks Daniel. Good to hear of someone using NAT for DNS traffic. My
fears of it are mostly performance-based--every DNS query takes up a new
entry in the ACE's NAT table. In our case, that's thousands of queries
per second that the ACE has to keep in memory. I've shown it to be a
slight (2
On 10/19/12 1:25 PM, "John Miller" wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Perhaps a Cisco list is a better destination for this, but I've seen a
> similar post here in the past couple of months, so posting here as well.
>
> I'm trying to get our Cisco ACE set up appropriately to handle DNS
> traffic.
IMO, the only boxes which should have IPs in both public and private netblocks
should be your firewall/NAT routing boxes.
That's how we usually have our servers set up--the load balancer gets
the public IPs, the servers get the private IPs, and we use NAT to
translate between the two.
Here
Hi--
On Oct 19, 2012, at 11:25 AM, John Miller wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Perhaps a Cisco list is a better destination for this, but I've seen a
> similar post here in the past couple of months, so posting here as well.
>
> I'm trying to get our Cisco ACE set up appropriately to handle DNS tr
Hello everyone,
Perhaps a Cisco list is a better destination for this, but I've seen a
similar post here in the past couple of months, so posting here as well.
I'm trying to get our Cisco ACE set up appropriately to handle DNS
traffic. So far, I've gotten it working using NAT (each rserver h
12 matches
Mail list logo
