Re: QUICKER FIX Re: [fjk].gtld-servers.net bogus for .com
Many thanks to my friend & cow-orker Tristan Horn for this idea...in BIND 8 you can define servers as bogus (meaning "don't ever trust these") as follows:
// [fjkl].root-servers.net server 192.5.5.241 { bogus yes; }; server 198.41.0.10 { bogus yes; }; server 193.0.14.129 { bogus yes; }; server 198.32.64.12 { bogus yes; };
i recommend against that.
Do you recommend against this particular way of telling BIND to temporarily ignore name servers which are known to be a little, errr, funky? Or do you recommend against ignoring broken name servers in general?.. I guess what I really would like to know is how did you handle this problem? :) Just wondering, --------Scott.
server 192.5.5.241 { bogus yes; }; server 198.41.0.10 { bogus yes; }; server 193.0.14.129 { bogus yes; }; server 198.32.64.12 { bogus yes; };
i recommend against that.
Do you recommend against this particular way of telling BIND to temporarily ignore name servers which are known to be a little, errr, funky? Or do you recommend against ignoring broken name servers in general?..
i recommend against declaring servers bogus unless you're going to monitor them and mark them unbogus as soon as they are OK again. (like F, right now, is OK again since the FTP of the com zone from internic finally finished.)
I guess what I really would like to know is how did you handle this problem? :)
Just wondering,
we did what most people did: suffered. also, i took F offline while it was fetching the COM zone. dns leaks a fair bit. we have 20+ nameservers here, and i did not want to go in and mark the bad-servers-of-the-hour as bogus.
participants (2)
-
Paul A Vixie -
Scott Gifford