Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Le 29/12/2017 à 18:27, Andrew W a écrit :
>>
>> On 27/12/2017 13:18, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
>>> Current BIND9 defaults to doing DNSSEC verification. DNSSEC needs large
>>> packets. You might have an issue with UDP fragments being dropped at
>>> your firewall/NAT Gateway?
Le 29/12/2017 à 18:27, Andrew W a écrit :
On 27/12/2017 13:18, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
Current BIND9 defaults to doing DNSSEC verification. DNSSEC needs large
packets. You might have an issue with UDP fragments being dropped at
your firewall/NAT Gateway?
Thanks for this tip. Looking into it I
On 27/12/2017 13:18, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
Current BIND9 defaults to doing DNSSEC verification. DNSSEC needs large
packets. You might have an issue with UDP fragments being dropped at
your firewall/NAT Gateway?
Thanks for this tip. Looking into it I discovered TCP seems to be
recommened fo
Andrew Wood wrote:
Hi,
> I have a server which acts as a DNS server for our LAN. All our internal
> servers have A records on it using a .local domain and it forwards all
> other requests out to the root servers using the in built list provided
> with BIND. All clients on the LAN have this ma
Andrew W wrote:
>
>
> Does anyone have any ideas please?
>
I had the same experience - I think (after trying this and that) the
solution was ntp (time was behind on the server), but I am not really 100%.
I was thinking first it has something to do with ipv6 or firewall, but after
updating the
I have a server which acts as a DNS server for our LAN. All our internal
servers have A records on it using a .local domain and it forwards all
other requests out to the root servers using the in built list provided
with BIND. All clients on the LAN have this machine set as their only
DNS serve
I have a server which acts as a DNS server for our LAN. All our internal
servers have A records on it using a .local domain and it forwards all
other requests out to the root servers using the in built list provided
with BIND. All clients on the LAN have this machine set as their only
DNS serve
Steve McIntyre writes:
> mar...@server1.shellworld.net
> >
> >622 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 551 not upgraded.
> >Need to get 222 MB of archives.
> >After this operation, 48.4 MB of additional disk space will be used.
> >Do you want to continue [Y/n]?
> >
> >Needless to say, I typ
mar...@server1.shellworld.net
>
>622 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 551 not upgraded.
>Need to get 222 MB of archives.
>After this operation, 48.4 MB of additional disk space will be used.
>Do you want to continue [Y/n]?
>
>Needless to say, I typed n and there's where things stand now
On Thursday 16 July 2015 17:09:45 Martin G. McCormick wrote:
> It is time to finish the upgrade from squeeze to jessie,
> I think. It looks like the squeeze to wheezy upgrade worked but
> I see a problem when trying to upgrade from wheezy to jessie.
>
> Here are the active lines in sour
It is time to finish the upgrade from squeeze to jessie,
I think. It looks like the squeeze to wheezy upgrade worked but
I see a problem when trying to upgrade from wheezy to jessie.
Here are the active lines in sources.list: When all
entries pointed to wheezy, I did the upgrade an
That should have been a subject of
wheezy to jessie. I goofed
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/20150716161308.01b2022...@server1.shellworld.net
Please don't top post - it requires extra effort for people to work out
what you are referring to.
On 29/01/14 13:54, John D. Hendrickson and Sara Darnell wrote:
> if you knew how to build and install a kernel without using a package
> if you knew the /var/lib/dpkg/status and available and /etc
On 28/01/14 18:40, Garry wrote:
>
>>
>
> It was one of those situations where everything you do gets trumped. I
> decided to use a different server for the openfire install.
>
For people searching for a solution to the same problem:-
Debian Wheezy (note: you'll also need mysql, see the OpenF
Reposting on-list, my apologies Gary for accidentally replying off-list
On 28/01/14 17:56, Garry wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jan 27, 2014, at 11:50 PM, "Scott Ferguson"
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 28/01/14 15:12, Garry wrote:
>>
Re-sending, accidentally sent off-list
On 28/01/14 15:12, Garry wrote:
>
> Is it possible to downgrade from Wheezy to Squeeze?
>
> The reason I want to downgrade is because I am trying to install Openfire and
> unfortunately:
>
> openfire pre-depends on sun-java5-jre | su
2014-01-28 Garry
>
> Is it possible to downgrade from Wheezy to Squeeze?
>
> The reason I want to downgrade is because I am trying to install Openfire
> and unfortunately:
>
> openfire pre-depends on sun-java5-jre | sun-java6-jre |
> default-jre-headless | openjdk-6-jr
Is it possible to downgrade from Wheezy to Squeeze?
The reason I want to downgrade is because I am trying to install Openfire and
unfortunately:
openfire pre-depends on sun-java5-jre | sun-java6-jre | default-jre-headless |
openjdk-6-jre
- - I would prefer downgrading if it’s possible
18 matches
Mail list logo
