Odd response from upstream DNS servers

[Levi Pederson]

All,

I understand this would be easier if it were not obfuscated.  But alas that
is not something that can be done.

Thank you to all who have responded.  A lot of the information I'm
receiving is indicating something on the authority level.  Who has it, Who
is supposed to have it, and the like.  I'm going to continue in that skein
until I have found an answer.

case closed : Thank you to all for your help and additions and your time.

Thank you,


*Levi Pederson*
Mankato Networks LLC
cell | 612.481.0769
work | 612.787.7392
levipederson at mankatonetworks.net


On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Evan Hunt <each at isc.org> wrote:

> This would really be a lot easier if it were not anonymized.  However...
>
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 02:43:30PM -0600, Levi Pederson wrote:
> > Packet 840 Upstream-NS ---> Local-NS
> [...]
> > Frame 840: 245 bytes on wire (1960 bits), 245 bytes captured (1960 bits)
> [...]
> >         .... .0.. .... .... = Authoritative: Server is not an authority
> for
> > domain
>
> Bad delegation, I guess.  The "authoritative" server says it isn't.
>
> --
> Evan Hunt -- each at isc.org
> Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/attachments/20150106/bc98923c/attachment.html>