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
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
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 & :
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
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
5 matches
Mail list logo