Turning off recusion

April xiaoxia2005a at yahoo.com
Sat Oct 21 12:53:19 UTC 2006


Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <ehc4e1$8fs$1 at sf1.isc.org>, "April" <xiaoxia2005a at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Barry Margolin wrote:
> > > In article <eh8el4$247j$1 at sf1.isc.org>, churchers at gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > We have 3 nameservers which are now authorative for about 1000 domain
> > > > names and have,
> > > > unfortunately, been historically used as general purpose resolvers.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to turn off recusion but if I do, they start reporting any
> > > > domain name they don't run dns
> > > > for as being non-existant.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > pegasus# ping www.google.com
> > > > ping: cannot resolve www.google.com: No address associated with name
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Shouldn't they be referring the lookup to parent nameservers or am I
> > > > missing something?
> > >
> > > Referring who to the parent nameservers?  Clients almost always have
> > > "stub resolvers", which do not implement iteration by themselves.  They
> > > send queries with the Recursion Desired flag set, and depend on the
> > > server to perform recursion to look up remote names.
> >
> > where is this "remote names" coming from?  Is this a DNS terminology?
> > That is called something like "names they are not authoritative or not
> > cached"!
>
> Remote names are names that are not in your local organization's domain,
> that your local name server is not authoritative for.

I don't think this explanation is very DNS, we smart and professional
DNS people use DNS terminology with ontology in mind all the time  ..
you better use this one I recommend, "the names the resolving server is
not authoritative, and not currently caches".  ;-)

>
> --
> Barry Margolin, barmar at alum.mit.edu
> Arlington, MA
> *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
> *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***



More information about the bind-users mailing list