Link Aggregate vs DNS

Recently, I installed Leopard Server on 3 XServes for our school. With Tiger Server, link aggregation on the XServe running DNS and ODM worked great. Once we migrated to Leopard Server, DNS just went flakey with a link aggregate bonded Ethernet setup. I am using a new HP ProCurve 2824 with the latest firmware applied to the switch.
The workaround was to split the link aggregate to the two separated Ethernet NICs.
I am wondering if this is a known bug in Leopard Server? My other Leopard Server setups not running DNS are performing great with link aggregation setup.

Just a NOTE of happenstance.

Similar Messages

Link Aggregate and DNS

I have set up my Xserve with a Link aggregate to provide more bandwidth for my software updates. Part of the Link Aggregation is assigning each NIC with a self-assigned IP address. This server is also bound to an Windows 2003 Active Directory domain. My problem is that this self-assigned IP address is somehow getting published to our (Windows) DNS servers. Needless to say this causes a lot of resolution errors.
Is there a way to prevent this on the Xserve side, or is it a setting on the DNS server that needs to be changed?

As background, each test I did with Ling Aggregation set a self-assigned IP address on the NICs. The Configure field is set to DHCP on the NICs, while the bonded interface has a manually set IP. What can I set that field to without deactivating the NIC?
UPDATE:
OK, I never tried setting the NICs' Configure setting to OFF. I just did that on another machine and noticed that the bonded interface still worked.
Thanks
Message was edited by: Sean Mcgarrahan

Link aggregation and DNS

Brand new Xserve intel
link aggregation turn on two network cards works great.
DNS is running but when testing i dont' resolve his own adres
Link aggregation off DNS works
What goes wrong ?
thanks

You mean if the DNS server is running on the same machine you can no longer use it if bonding the interfaces?
I only know I saw a problem when I used 127.0.0.1 as the nameserver address in Network settings on the bonded interface. Users that always get the same "macaddress locked" static IP from the DHCP server, running in the same machine, got that as the nameserver IP (from the machine's Network setting) instead of from the ones in DHCP config.
(The DHCP server config also needed to be altered to serve on the bond0 interface).
And I think the info in /etc/named.conf "to only use 127.0.0.1" is, you should only allow for alterations of DNS server settings from that IP and maybe not that you should use it as the IP in Network settings.

D-Link fouls up DNS

I am running 10.5.1 on an iBook G4 with 1.5 GB Ram.
My flatmate purchased an ADSL2 router (I assume it is also a DSL modem, though it doesn't say this on the box). A telephone cable runs from the wall to this router. It is not wireless. When I plug my iBook into this router using a LAN cable all is well. A DNS server address of 192.168.1.254 shows up in my network prefs with 'home.gateway' as the search domain. TPC/IP settings are set to: 'using DHCP' with automatic address. Again, the internet works fine and the speed is fine.
Here's the thing...
I bought a D-Link wireless router (DI-524, 802.11g) thinking I could use it as a modem, that is, run the telephone cable from the wall into the D-Link router. Of course, I quickly realized you can't. So what I did was run a LAN cable from the first (non-wireless) router/modem to the D-link wireless router. It seemed to work flawlessly. My flatmates PC laptop works fine when connected wirelessly, in fact. And, I didn't even need to really tweak any of the details in the D-link settings, except to put a password on it on the connection.
But then when I connect to the wireless router I can't seem to open some web pages. This is particularly so for webpages that require some sort of info to be sent, such as signing on to hotmail. For example, the only way I can use this site (logging in, posting this question, etc.) is by connecting with a LAN cable to the ADSL non-wireless modem/router and bypassing the D-link. If I use the wireless D-link router then I get an error message on Safari saying:
"Safari can’t open the page “http://discussions.apple.com/post!default.jspa?forumID=1222” because the server unexpectedly dropped the connection, which sometimes occurs when the server is busy. You might be able to open the page later."
I also notice that, for example, when I type in www.hotmail.com, I get sent to a different MSN site, not the original hotmail sign-in. And then, when I try to sign it, it stalls again. So, this got me thinking that it might be the DNS. Under Airport, in my network prefs, I cannot change the DNS addresses. They are "grayed out" so as to make it impossible to remove them, or alter their order. This seemed suspicious to me, but I'm at a loss for how to fix any of this.
Bottom line is this: when using the wireless connection through the D-Link router my internet is sketchy, with some webpages (especially those requiring forms like ebay.com) not loading. When I bypass the D-link router, all is fine. Even more confusing is that my flatmates PC laptop loads all pages fine while connected to the D-link wireless router.
Any help is greatly appreciated...

Three Things come to mind immediately:
1. Make certain that your ADSL modem is in "bridged ethernet mode", not PPPOE. Turn OFF DHCP on the ADSL modem, then use your wired router setup to establish the PPOE connection with username and password. Usually you need to connect direct from the computer to the ADSL modem with an ethernet cable and navigate to 192.168.1.254 with your browser, but that address may vary. Bridged ethernet settings are usually under advanced settings.
2. Turn ON DHCP on the wired router
3. In the wireless router turn OFF DHCP.
You can only have one DHCP server on the LAN
Hope this helps
Peter

IMac 5k won't link aggregate above 100mbs speeds

We have a iMac 5k link aggregated using the ethernet port and a thunderbolt to Ethernet adaptor. The speed tops out at 100mbs, even though if you connect the same two cables to a 2010 Mac Pro and you get over 200mbs. This looks distinctly like a hardware or software issue with these imacs!

Nope, not sure how I would even do that! ethernet 1 in Ethernet port, ethernet 2 in thunderbolt to ethernet adaptor. Creating a link bond which should get over 200mbs. Only getting the speed of 1. They both show green in network prefs and network is all working and connected.

Network bond (link aggregate) failing

I have a D-Link DGS-1224T. I have set up a trunk between ports 5 and 6. I have connected cat6 cables between my macpro and those ports. I have gone in and successfully created a bond and given it manual IP settings.
It works great for a little while, then it fails saying that there is no partner. If I recreate, again it works for a short period of time.
Any thoughts?

There are a lot of factors, look at N for wireless. Even IEEE has some issues after something is released. FYI: It was originally called IEEE 802.1AX-2008 and before that it was IEEE 802.3-2005 Ethernet. So depending on which format Dlink used they are not incorrect. I suspect you thought it did as did this person:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=361809
Again this is not a manufacture issue.

Aggregate (trunked) link and NetBoot

The previous thread on link aggregation was archived without a solution last year. OS X 10.4.2 was the last version tested in that thread.
I have an xserve with an aggregate link. Everything works well except netboot. Half the time the computer will boot from it's local hard drive and half the time it will netboot. So it seems Apple 'sorta' fixed this problem.
Is anybody out there doing the same thing? How is it working for you?

v10.4.3 is the first version of Server to support the NetBoot service running on a link aggregate.
I have it up and running on v10.4.7. I had to remember to reconfigure my DHCP service too, so that it was going out on bond0 instead of en0.
Admittedly, I haven't pushed this yet to find to verify its reliability. We have netboot issues even with a single port. Ocassionally clients will fail to netboot some of the time. No apparent rhyme nor reason to it.
Xserve G5 Dual 2.3GHz Mac OS X (10.4.7)

Non-ISP DDNS with Apple DHCP and DNS Services

I have two questions about Dynamic DNS (DDNS) as it applies to Apple's DNS and DHCP services within my home network. I am not talking about DDNS in the context of making my external-facing router available by a domain name on the Internet using the dynamically-assigned IP from my ISP.
Starting with Snow Leopard Server, I attempted to use Apple's DNS and DHCP services (I have the firmware-based DHCP service in my router turned off.) The difficulty I immediately faced was that Apple's DHCP implementation didn't update the DNS service as IPs were handed out to DHCP clients. Because of this, it wasn't possible to access hosts by their hostname, since getting a DHCP-assigned dynamic IP at boot-up didn't do anything to automagically register the hostname-to-IP mapping in DNS. Manually registering the hostname in DNS was pointless, becuase over time the client IP address can and did change. I could create static IP assignments based on the MAC address, but doing that for all of the devices on my home network sort of defeated the purpose of using dynamic IPs.
The only solution I eventually found was to go out and get an open source DHCP server, compile it for my Mac, install it, and configure it. After doing this, everything worked great; every time a new host or other device was booted it got a dynamic IP through DHCP, and then the DHCP server automatically updated Apple's DNS serive with the hostname and assigned IP. I could immediately access every device on my network by hostname. As IP addresses changed over time, the hostname-to-IP mapping in DNS was automatically updated.
Except, Apple's point upgrades kept breaking my non-Apple DHCP install. Every time I applied software updates to my server I had to go back and re-finagle DHCP to get it to automatically start and run. By the time Lion Server came out, I drank the Kool-Aid and went back to Apple's DHCP implementation. I was disappointed that it still didn't seem able to update DNS with hostnames as it assigned IPs, but I was so tired of mucking about at the command prompt to fix DHCP every time Software Updates broke it, I just lived with the inconvenience of not being able to access devices on my network by hostname.
I'm sorry to say this, but Windows Server has had this capability since at least server 2003. In fact, until I dumped my Windows Server and switched to Snow Leopard Server, I was running Microsoft's DNS and DHCP services on Server 2003 and they did exactly what I'm describing brilliantly.
Can anyone offer any advice here? Does Mountain Lion's implementation of DHCP allow for DDNS updates to the DNS service? If not, how are other people handling this? Should I go back to running Windows Server for my DNS and DHCP services? My Netgear WNDR3700 router appears to have the standard, substandard DHCP server in firmware as most home routers, and no facility for DNS at all--much less the ability to update an on-site DNS sever with IP addresess it hands out. In fact, the only appliance I know of that does this is the InfoBlox my employer uses, but that's too expensive for a home solution.
As a Post Script, I'll add that I've been VERY unhappy that I lost the ability to bind Windows clients to Open Directory under Lion Server. Since I'm starting to see articles that say this capability hasn't been added back to Mountain Lion Server, I'm seriously considering implementing a Windows Server AD master and establishing a "magic triangle" or "golden triangle". If I end up having to do that, I wonder if I might as well just go back to using Microsoft's DNS and DHCP services.

Hi,
Whether to move your DHCP to another server depends on the workload of your server. If there are too many clients on the network, you should move your DHCP to another server.
Did the record which owned by the machine generate before you configure the DnsUpdateProxy group? You can try to regenerate the record and check the result.
For more detailed information, you can view the link below.
DNS best practices
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc778439(v=ws.10).aspx
Using DNS servers with DHCP
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc787034(v=ws.10).aspx
DNS registration changes for Windows Server 2003 based DHCP Servers
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee441167(v=ws.10).aspx
Hope this helps.
Steven Lee
TechNet Community Support

State of DNS after Domain rename

Hi all
Still learning DNS and want to add secondary DC
I initially set this up as a mydomain.local as I believed that was best practice. When researching SSL certificates I realised that it was now supposedly best practice to use mydomain.com. I did a Domain rename which was interesting and seemed to work reasonably
well.
2012 AD DC is :
IPv4: 192.168.1.105
Computer name: name
Full Computer name: name.mydomain.local
Domain name is: mydomain.com
2012 Server RDS is: (was secondary DNS when .local)
IPv4: 192.168.1.100
Computer name: remote
Computer name: remote.mydomain.com
Domain name is: mydomain.com
I want to install Secondary DNS to the RDS server or maybe a VM on it for redundancy but am concerned my DNS is possibly a little bit dodgy.
Only issues I have is sometimes from remote “mydomain.com” will resolve to 192.168.1.100 and don’t believe this should happen but may be wrong.
Every now and again from Remote Desktop which is on 192.168.1.100 (remote.mydomain.com) web sites won’t load and you need to refresh which will normally then resolve and load.
The only other issue is every now and again autodiscover will take a while to resolve and troubleshooting that implies a timeout. MS have looked at this and didn’t see any issues in my DNS however I think that was just due to the fact that it resolved eventually.
I have include some info ipconfig on 192.168.1.100 shows DNS 192.168.1.105.
NSLOOKUP
Name:    mydomain.com
Addresses: 192.168.1.100
          192.168.1.105
> remote.mydomain.com
Server: UnKnown
Address: 192.168.1.105
Name:    remote.mydomain.com
Address: 192.168.1.100
> mydomain.local
Server: UnKnown
Address: 192.168.1.105
Name:    mydomain.local
Address: 192.168.1.105
Pings from RDS
C:\Users\administrator.MD>ping mydomain.local
Pinging mydomain.local [192.168.1.105] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.1.105: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
C:\Users\administrator.MD>ping mydomain.com
Pinging mydomain.com [192.168.1.100] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.1.100: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
C:\Users\administrator.MD>ping mydomain.com
Pinging mydomain.com [192.168.1.105] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.1.105: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
DCDIAG
         The DFS Replication Event Log.
         There are warning or error events within the last 24 hours after the
         SYSVOL has been shared. Failing SYSVOL replication problems may cause
         Group Policy problems.
         A warning event occurred. EventID: 0x800008A5
            Time Generated: 05/14/2014   01:30:50
            Event String:
            The DFS Replication service stopped replication on volume C:. This occurs when a DFSR JET database is not shut down cleanly and Auto Recovery is disabled. To resolve this issue, back up the
files in the affected replicated folders, and then use the ResumeReplication WMI method to resume replication.
            Additional Information:
            Volume: C:
            GUID: A3ABE3A7-A0E5-11E2-93E8-806E6F6E6963
            Recovery Steps
            1. Back up the files in all replicated folders on the volume. Failure to do so may result in data loss due to unexpected conflict resolution during the recovery of the replicated folders.
            2. To resume the replication for this volume, use the WMI method ResumeReplication of the DfsrVolumeConfig class. For example, from an elevated command prompt, type the following command:
            wmic /namespace:\\root\microsoftdfs path dfsrVolumeConfig where volumeGuid="A3ABE3A7-A0E5-11E2-93E8-806E6F6E6963" call ResumeReplication
* Replication Latency Check
            DC=ForestDnsZones,DC=mydomain,DC=com
               Latency information for 1 entries in the vector were ignored.
                  1 were retired Invocations. 0 were either: read-only replicas and are not verifiably latent, or dc's no longer replicating this nc. 0 had no
latency information (Win2K DC).
            DC=DomainDnsZones,DC=mydomain,DC=com

Hi,
If I understand correctly, you have two computers with the following host names and IP addresses:
1. name (192.168.1.100)
2. remote (192.168.1.105)
The first server is a domain controller. The second server is a domain member server.
Your Active Directory domain was 'mydomain.local' and you changed this to 'mydomain.com'
DNS is installed on server #1.
To avoid confusion when talking about DNS and Active Directory, you can refer to mydomain.com as your Active Directory domain, which has users and groups in it and is hosted on a domain controller. You also have a DNS forward lookup zone mydomain.com that
is used to dynamically register computers that are members of the Active Directory domain. So - when referring to Active Directory - it is a domain but when referring to DNS it is a zone. These are two separate things that are linked.
The DNS zone should have at least three A (address) records:
mydomain.com (the root of the zone)
name.mydomain.com (the DC)
remote.mydomain.com (the member server)
You should see the .100 address for the first two and the .105 address for the third. Open up DNS Manager and view the zone to check it.
The pings you have listed in your post don't all make sense. Two of them are pinging the same FQDN but give different IP addresses (below):
What problem are you trying to solve?
-Greg

Backup DNS Records

Afternoon,
Is there a way to create a back-up A record in order to provide redundancy?
I'm currently in the middle of setting up a DR site and looking to find a way to have a set of DNS record pointing at existing servers host name but with different IP addresses so in the event that we require to bring a replicated server up at the DR site
the DNS record would automatic switch over after the TTL has expired on the primary link.
our DNS service runs on a windows server 2012 environment in a cluster of 3 servers for redundancy.
Thanks

To answer/address the question about the same records with different IPs, unfortunately it doesn't work that way with AD. The IPs registered are absolute for the service locations, and they must be consistent across the organization for AD DC to DC communications
including replication, and client to DC communications. If you attempt to alter them, it will cause numerous errors and additional headaches that I'm sure you do not want to deal with.
Just setup two DCs at the DR, do not make them GCs. Just make them GCs in case a down issue occurs. Depending if you have 3 or more sites, this may also require to make individual site links for each site and disable BASL. The reasons are long winded,
but it's technically how AD works. You can design around it, but you can't mess with DNS. And keep in mind, just because they are up, services and client apps may not be so forgiving to "see" the DR servers until they've been restarted.
So there's more to this than it appears.
You can read up in this stuff in the following link:
AD Site Design, DNS & the DC Locator Process, and Auto Site Link Bridging, or Bridge All Site Links (BASL)
http://blogs.msmvps.com/acefekay/2013/02/24/ad-site-design-and-auto-site-link-bridging-or-bridge-all-site-links-basl/
The blogs below discusses:
WINS NetBIOS, Browser Service, Disabling NetBIOS, & Direct Hosted SMB (DirectSMB). Troubleshooting the browser service.
Client side resolution process chart.
The DNS Client Side Resolver algorithm.
If one DC or DNS goes down, does a client logon to another DC or use the other DNS server in the NIC?
DNS Forwarders Algorithm and multiple DNS addresses (if you've configured more than one forwarders or more than one IP in the NIC's DNS list)
Client side resolution process chart
Published by Ace Fekay, MCT, MVP DS on Nov 29, 2009 at 10:28 PM 1764 1
http://blogs.msmvps.com/acefekay/2009/11/29/dns-wins-netbios-amp-the-client-side-resolver-browser-service-disabling-netbios-direct-hosted-smb-directsmb-if-one-dc-is-down-does-a-client-logon-to-another-dc-and-dns-forwarders-algorithm/
Ace Fekay
MVP, MCT, MCSE 2012, MCITP EA & MCTS Windows 2008/R2, Exchange 2013, 2010 EA & 2007, MCSE & MCSA 2003/2000, MCSA Messaging 2003
Microsoft Certified Trainer
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
Complete List of Technical Blogs: http://www.delawarecountycomputerconsulting.com/technicalblogs.php
This posting is provided AS-IS with no warranties or guarantees and confers no rights.

Link Aggregation, revisited again

I did all this research to find out how LACP Link Aggregation actually functions in OS X Server, and found many varying opinions out there (there is precious little in OS X documentation, it says essentially set it up and you are good to go:). It seems there is a disagreement on whether OS X (properly configured with LACP switch) will actually spread out traffic dynamically, or whether it only spreads out traffic when one becomes saturated.
So I did a test, configured en0 and en1 as a link aggregate called Fat Pipe, and both show green (Cisco switch with LACP for those ports). However, no matter how many concurrent read/writes to different servers, I can't confirm that there is any improvement at all, which leads me to believe that 'true' load balancing is not happening.
Also, I have read 2 differing opinions on how the bonded NICs should appear in Network prefs: configured as "Off", or as DHCP with self-assigned 169.x.x.x address.
Anyone with info, would be much appreciated. At this point I'm almost inclined to just give each NIC their own IP, and just manually assign some users to connect with one IP, and some with the other...doesn't seem as efficient as aggregation though.
Thanks

I did all this research to find out how LACP Link Aggregation actually functions in OS X Server, and found many varying opinions out there
There's no disagreement as far as I'm aware
It's a function of link aggregation (which is an IEEE standard) and therefore not subject to the whims of Apple's implementation.
The low-down is that the links are both used and specifically which link is used is based on the MAC address of the source and destination hosts.
Moreover, there is no concept of link saturation or failover when one is full - it's entirely possible for one to to be saturated and all the other links to be completely idle if that's the way the MAC addresses run.
A simplified view of the algorithm makes it easy to understand - for a 2-link trunk using en0 and en1, the system looks at the MAC addresses of the source and destination hosts. If they're both odd it uses en0, if they're both even, it uses en0, if they're different (one is odd and one is even) then it uses en1. Therefore, it's entirely possible that all traffic will use one link if all the MAC addresses are odd (or even).
The upshot is that you will never exceed the single link speed (e.g. 1gbps if using 1gbps links) to any single host on the network, so the transfer rates between two devices will be capped at that. However, if a second host initiates a connection, and if that second host's MAC address causes its traffic to transmit over the other link, the the second host's transfers won't be impacted by the first host's transfer.
I can't confirm that there is any improvement at all, which leads me to believe that 'true' load balancing is not happening.
In the real world, it's unlikely that you'll get a single host pumping 1gbps of traffic into the network, so you only really see the effect when you have multiple hosts all talking at the same time. A reasonable test would be to time simultaneous transfers to/from the server, then pull one of the links and see if things slow down.
Also, I have read 2 differing opinions on how the bonded NICs should appear in Network prefs: configured as "Off", or as DHCP with self-assigned 169.x.x.x address.
The links don't appear at all in any of my servers running with trunks. The only interface I see is the trunk.
If I use ifconfig in the terminal I see the underlying links as 'active', but they don't have any IP address assigned to them.

Link aggregation stradling two switches?

Hey guys, I'm back with more questions about Link agregation. I figured out that I do have to manually configure both of my switches to support it. Now though I'm stuck with trying to figure out the best way to implement it. I have a Netgear FSM726 and a Linksys EF24G2. Both are 24-port 100BT switches with 2 Gigabit ports on them. They are currently setup like this: The Xserve runs with one gigabit port going into one of the gigabit ports on the Linksys. The other gigabit port on the linksys runs into the Netgear to join the two together. That leaves one open gigabit port on the netgear.
So in order to setup link aggregation I'd have to use two gigabit ports on one of the switches, or use two 100BT ports. Alternatively, I was thinking if I setup link aggregation on the Xserve and then just ran each of the two lines into one gigabit port on both switches it may work without having to do any configuring on the switches? Will that cause any problems with network traffic?
If I go with the gigabit port on one switch idea, as far as I see, I'd have to join the two switches with a 100BT connection instead of the current gigabit line. I'm not even sure if that matters really. So which way is a better way to go? Also, if I go with using the gigabit ports on one switch, can I use two open 100BT ports to join into the other switch for increased bandwidth? Thanks for helping out here.

Steve has it right. Link aggregation only works between two devices (e.g. a server and a switch, or two switches). You cannot link three devices (a server and two switches) using a single link aggregation. That's because of how the traffic flows over the link.
Your best solution depends on the traffic patterns on your network - where are the clients that are hitting this server?
If you have a dozen clients that hit the server a lot, plus more clients that don't hit it much (or at all), plus printers, etc., you could use two of the gigabit ports on one switch as a link aggregate to the server and plug the busy clients into that switch, then plug the other clients into the other switch, using a 100base-T link (or multiple 100base-T links) to connect to two switches together.
This may or may not be viable, in which case a separate gigabit switch to connect the server and the two existing switches may be the best solution.

Link Aggregation - computer to switch-pair

Hi all,
According to the Mac OS X Server documentation (http://images.apple.com/server/macosx/docs/AdvancedServer_Adminv10.6.pdf, page 165), it is possible to create a "Computer to switch-pair" scenario, to provide a redundant network connection for an Xserve running OS X Server 10.5 or 10.6.
What I would like to set up, is for an Xserve to connect to 2 different switches (using link aggregation as described in the manual), so that if a switch fails, the Xserve retains connectivity (using the same IP address).
Has anyone managed to do this in reality? If so, would you mind telling me how it is configured? Info on how to set this up is non-existent...even a local Apple engineer was unable to help.
If it helps, I'm connecting my Xserves to either: (a) a pair of HP ProCurve 2810-24G switches, or (b) HP ProCurve 8200zl and 5400zl switch
Thanks in advance for any assistance.
Cheers,
Dave.

Link aggregation can give you redundancy and greater bandwidth by allowing you to combine Ethernet ports, but the ports must be connected to the same switch. I don't believe there is a way to connect to two different switches using the same IP as technically that would create a loop, which would bring the connection on your Mac to a halt, if not slow down the entire switch.
Switch failure isn't super-common, at least not in my experience, and you're using good switches to begin with. I would create a link if you need more bandwidth to the switch for, say, a fileserver but otherwise, I wouldn't worry about it.
If you do decide to try link aggregating, you need to do two things:
In OS X under Network Prefs go to > (Gear Icon) Manage Virtual Interfaces > New Link Aggregate... and combine your ports there. In the new Network panel created for the new ethernet bond, enter your TCP/IP settings.
In the switch, you need to enable LACP (Link Aggregation Control Protocol) for each port you want to include in the link aggregation. This is usually just a checkbox in the main ports page of the switch admin interface. Many switches don't support link aggregation, so if you can't find it easily, make sure your switch actually includes it.
JM

What is about rumors with DNS bug?

There a rumors about update 2008-5 that it is not solving problems with clients (›So Apple might have fixed some of the more important parts for servers, but is far from done yet as all the clients linked against a DNS client library still need to get the workaround for the protocol weakness.‹ in http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=4810)
I think, clients are not at all touched with this matter. Is this right?
Karl

Client caches can be poisoned. But this forum is for the server product, where DNS poisoning is more troublesome. That issue has largely been resolved with Apple's latest patch.

DNS Server in IOS?

Does any version of the IOS include a DNS server? To make a long story short, I just need one record to be resolved on a non-routed subnet and am hoping I have can have a router act as a DNS server.

see the following link for ios dns support for ns records:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1839/products_feature_guide09186a0080087ae3.html
(ios 12.2)

Link Aggregate vs DNS

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for