Re: FreeBSD violates RFC2870 [was: Re: Problems with named default configuration in 6-STABLE]

2007-07-19 Thread Kevin Oberman
From: Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:54:00 +1000 Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 12:47:50PM +0200, Volker wrote: As I think having a default to hint root zone is better, I'll file a PR about that. Which leads me to ask: Why

Re: FreeBSD violates RFC2870 [was: Re: Problems with named default configuration in 6-STABLE]

2007-07-18 Thread Mark Andrews
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 12:47:50PM +0200, Volker wrote: As I think having a default to hint root zone is better, I'll file a PR about that. Which leads me to ask: Why hasn't anyone recommended using stub zones for this? It seems the goal is to cache NS records from the rootservers,

FreeBSD violates RFC2870 [was: Re: Problems with named default configuration in 6-STABLE]

2007-07-17 Thread Volker
On 07/17/07 11:06, Heiko Wundram (Beenic) wrote: On Tuesday 17 July 2007 10:52:43 Volker wrote: snip Relying on a zone transfer doesn't seem to be reliable to me as more than half of the root servers doesn't reply to AXFR requests. I've heard pretty much the same thing as you did wrt. root

Re: FreeBSD violates RFC2870 [was: Re: Problems with named default configuration in 6-STABLE]

2007-07-17 Thread Heiko Wundram (Beenic)
On Tuesday 17 July 2007 12:47:50 Volker wrote: I've googled a bit. RFC 2870 says: 2.7 Root servers SHOULD NOT answer AXFR, or other zone transfer, queries from clients other than other root servers. This restriction is intended to, among other things, prevent

Re: FreeBSD violates RFC2870 [was: Re: Problems with named default configuration in 6-STABLE]

2007-07-17 Thread Tom Evans
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 13:08 +0200, Heiko Wundram (Beenic) wrote: On Tuesday 17 July 2007 12:47:50 Volker wrote: I've googled a bit. RFC 2870 says: 2.7 Root servers SHOULD NOT answer AXFR, or other zone transfer, queries from clients other than other root servers. This

Re: FreeBSD violates RFC2870 [was: Re: Problems with named default configuration in 6-STABLE]

2007-07-17 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 12:47:50PM +0200, Volker wrote: As I think having a default to hint root zone is better, I'll file a PR about that. Which leads me to ask: Why hasn't anyone recommended using stub zones for this? It seems the goal is to cache NS records from the rootservers, and stub

Re: FreeBSD violates RFC2870 [was: Re: Problems with named default configuration in 6-STABLE]

2007-07-17 Thread Volker
On 07/17/07 13:45, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 12:47:50PM +0200, Volker wrote: As I think having a default to hint root zone is better, I'll file a PR about that. Which leads me to ask: Why hasn't anyone recommended using stub zones for this? It seems the goal is to

Re: FreeBSD violates RFC2870 [was: Re: Problems with named default configuration in 6-STABLE]

2007-07-17 Thread Heiko Wundram (Beenic)
On Tuesday 17 July 2007 13:45:04 Jeremy Chadwick wrote: On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 12:47:50PM +0200, Volker wrote: As I think having a default to hint root zone is better, I'll file a PR about that. Which leads me to ask: Why hasn't anyone recommended using stub zones for this? It seems the