Re: dig ignores +notcp when doing IXFR (DiG 9.5.0-P2)

2013-12-05 Thread Mark Andrews
In message <2e1626be-94f8-44e8-a73c-6521c44ba...@conundrum.com>, Matthew Pounsett writes: > > On 2013-12-05, at 01:37 , Mark Andrews wrote: > > > > >>> Note, named will for the use of TCP in its UDP response. > > > > s/for/force/ > > Always? Regardless of response size? Interesting. What's

Re: IPv4 control socket binding failure with BIND 9.9.4-P1 on RHEL6

2013-12-05 Thread Jay Ford
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Shumon Huque wrote: On 12/5/13 11:49 AM, Jay Ford wrote: I'm testing BIND 9.9.4-P1 on a RHEL6 system & am getting this log message: /etc/named.conf:56: couldn't add command channel 127.0.0.1#953: address in use I'm going to take a guess: you might have portreserve run

Re: IPv4 control socket binding failure with BIND 9.9.4-P1 on RHEL6

2013-12-05 Thread Shumon Huque
On 12/5/13 11:49 AM, Jay Ford wrote: I'm testing BIND 9.9.4-P1 on a RHEL6 system & am getting this log message: /etc/named.conf:56: couldn't add command channel 127.0.0.1#953: address in use That's with an rndc.key file in place & no "controls" config, which implies TCP 953 on 127.0.0.1 & :

IPv4 control socket binding failure with BIND 9.9.4-P1 on RHEL6

2013-12-05 Thread Jay Ford
I'm testing BIND 9.9.4-P1 on a RHEL6 system & am getting this log message: /etc/named.conf:56: couldn't add command channel 127.0.0.1#953: address in use That's with an rndc.key file in place & no "controls" config, which implies TCP 953 on 127.0.0.1 & ::1. Control via IPv6 (::1 port 953) w

Re: dig ignores +notcp when doing IXFR (DiG 9.5.0-P2)

2013-12-05 Thread Matthew Pounsett
On 2013-12-05, at 01:37 , Mark Andrews wrote: > >>> Note, named will for the use of TCP in its UDP response. > > s/for/force/ Always? Regardless of response size? Interesting. What's the rationale for doing it that way? ___ Please visit ht