On 07/08/2012 07:15 AM, Mr BeEye wrote:
Hello all.
Let's have a finite list of IPv4 (private and public) addresses, e.g.
{A, B, C, ... N}.
It is possible to configure BIND in the way:
1) BIND resolves EVERYTHING for {A, B, C, ... N}.
2) BIND resolves ONLY its authoritative domain for internet
Why not just:
acl X {A; B, C; ...; };
options {
...
allow-query { any; };
allow-recursion { X; };
...};
Jukka
8.7.2012 11:24, Phil Mayers kirjoitti:
On 07/08/2012 07:15 AM, Mr BeEye wrote:
Hello all.
Let's have a finite list of IPv4 (private and public) addresses, e.g.
{A, B, C,
On 07/08/2012 09:32 AM, Jukka Pakkanen wrote:
Why not just:
acl X {A; B, C; ...; };
options {
...
allow-query { any; };
allow-recursion { X; };
...};
Doh, of course. This is a better idea, thanks.
___
Please visit
On 07/07/2012 23:15, Mr BeEye wrote:
Hello all.
Let's have a finite list of IPv4 (private and public) addresses, e.g.
{A, B, C, ... N}.
It is possible to configure BIND in the way:
1) BIND resolves EVERYTHING for {A, B, C, ... N}.
It sounds like you're wanting to set up a resolver for
I upgraded my OpenSSL and BIND ports on one of my machines yesterday afternoon,
and ended up with BIND being unable to start due to some problem with OpenSSL.
Unfortunately, it's not giving me any real information to go on about what the
problem is.
openssl version
WARNING: can't open
On 07/08/12 09:54, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
08-Jul-2012 16:45:00.352 initializing DST: openssl failure
08-Jul-2012 16:45:00.352 exiting (due to fatal error)
In particular the logs above suggest that named is unable to find the
necessary openssl libraries. In the case where openssl 1.x.x is
On 2012/07/08, at 15:04, Michael Sinatra wrote:
What makes me doubt what I just said is that this has been an issue for more
than a year now, so I am not sure why you have escaped it for so long. I
assume you had openssl 1.0.x installed before you upgraded it--or was it an
earlier
On 07/08/2012 13:40, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
Yeah, I have to wonder if there's something that can be done in ports to
prevent this from being an issue.
You need to ask the nice openssl people to turn gost into a library
instead of an engine. Meanwhile, copying the file into the chroot will
On 2012/07/08, at 17:46, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/08/2012 13:40, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
Yeah, I have to wonder if there's something that can be done in ports to
prevent this from being an issue.
You need to ask the nice openssl people to turn gost into a library
instead of an engine.
In message d70930b5-78d5-4f33-b814-28811b885...@conundrum.com, Matthew Pounse
tt writes:
On 2012/07/08, at 17:46, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/08/2012 13:40, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
Yeah, I have to wonder if there's something that can be done in ports to p
revent this from being an issue.
On 2012/07/08, at 20:26, Mark Andrews wrote:
One can also build named w/o GOST support if one wants. We statically
link all the engines when building named on Windows.
Unfortunately the port doesn't provide the config hooks to disable GOST support.
On 2012/07/08, at 20:29, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
On 2012/07/08, at 20:26, Mark Andrews wrote:
One can also build named w/o GOST support if one wants. We statically
link all the engines when building named on Windows.
Unfortunately the port doesn't provide the config hooks to disable
On 07/08/2012 17:33, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
On 2012/07/08, at 20:29, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
On 2012/07/08, at 20:26, Mark Andrews wrote:
One can also build named w/o GOST support if one wants. We statically
link all the engines when building named on Windows.
Unfortunately the port
In message 6a477852-8c67-421a-850c-7144a37b8...@conundrum.com, Matthew Pounse
tt writes:
On 2012/07/08, at 20:29, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
=20
On 2012/07/08, at 20:26, Mark Andrews wrote:
=20
=20
One can also build named w/o GOST support if one wants. We =
statically
link all the
On 2012/07/08, at 20:40, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/08/2012 17:33, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
On 2012/07/08, at 20:29, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
On 2012/07/08, at 20:26, Mark Andrews wrote:
One can also build named w/o GOST support if one wants. We statically
link all the engines when
In message 4ffa2871.2020...@dougbarton.us, Doug Barton writes:
On 07/08/2012 17:33, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
On 2012/07/08, at 20:29, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
On 2012/07/08, at 20:26, Mark Andrews wrote:
One can also build named w/o GOST support if one wants. We statically
16 matches
Mail list logo
