BIND 9 NS records. (Bind 8 -> 9 ) migration.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <9ifiqb$55b at pub3.rc.vix.com>,
Christopher Crowley <ccrowley at tulane.edu> wrote:
>> Are you sure the problem is that BIND 9 doesn't promote
>> NS RRs?  That looks like a vanilla "CNAME and other
>> data" error in the eecs.tulane.edu zone to me.
>
>
>> > In system log:
>> > "time info" transfer of 'eecs.tulane.edu' from 129.81.132.1#53:
>receiving
>> > responses: CNAME and other data
>>
>> Are you sure the problem is that BIND 9 doesn't promote
>> NS RRs?  That looks like a vanilla "CNAME and other
>> data" error in the eecs.tulane.edu zone to me.
>
>
>No, I am not sure.  Can you suggest an assesment method? Our current
>configuration worked before we upgraded to Bind 9. Does the eecs nameserver
>need to be configured to allow recursive queries?

No, you need to find the conflicting CNAME record and fix it.
Unfortunately, it looks like BIND 9's error messages are not as clear as
BIND 8's were -- they used to tell you what name had the conflict.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar at genuity.net
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.