While I think FreeBSD generally should try to push the state of
the art envelope, it seems to me that this change may be premature,
in particular if the people providing the AXFR-service on which it
depends, are not prepared to officially offer the service.
So for this change to remain in
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
That said, I fully agree with the spirit of this change, I have
myself seen what positive difference it makes for servers in Denmark
to have a slave of the .dk zone, particular for busy mailservers.
One of the other objections I have with this change (other than the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Losher writes:
One of the other objections I have with this change (other than the fact
that it was made w/o consultation) is the fact that this is would become
the default setting.
I don't have data to judge the impact. I just tried it on one of my machines
Peter Losher wrote:
One of the other objections I have with this change (other than the fact
that it was made w/o consultation) is the fact that this is would become
the default setting. Yes, busy mail servers may be better served by
slaving frequently used zones, and as Vixie mentioned on the
Hi,
Regardless of the technicalities and politics, this change is
obviously a major POLA violation which is a good enough reason to
back it out.
--
Bob Bishop +44 (0)118 940 1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED] fax +44 (0)118 940 1295
___
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 18:04 -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
in addition nowhere does it state in RFC2870 that the root-servers have to
accept AXFR's as part of their service.
in fact, the opposite
2.7 Root servers SHOULD NOT answer AXFR, or other zone transfer,
queries from clients
Matthew Dillon wrote:
I generally recommend using our 'getroot' script to download an actual
root.zone file instead of using a hints file (and I guess AXFR is supposed
to replace both concepts).
Yes to AXFR replacing both, but ...
It has always seemed to me that actually
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
In an effort to find some kind of balance (I won't even try to say
consensus) between those who hate the idea of slaving the root
zones, those who like the idea but don't want it to be the default,
and those who like the idea, I've made the
Skip Ford wrote:
If the operators were required to support it, I think everyone
should slave the roots, not just those running busy servers.
Actually I don't think that's the right way to do it at all. What is
needed here is a reliable (DNSSEC, or at least TSIG) out of band
method to allow
Doug, good day.
Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 03:14:38AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
Matthew Dillon wrote:
It has always seemed to me that actually
downloading a physical root zone file once a week is the most reliable
solution.
This is a really bad idea. The root zone changes slowly, but
Doug Barton wrote:
In an effort to find some kind of balance (I won't even try to say
consensus) between those who hate the idea of slaving the root
zones, those who like the idea but don't want it to be the default,
and those who like the idea, I've made the following change:
1. Change the
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 06:34:59AM -0400, Skip Ford wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
In an effort to find some kind of balance (I won't even try to say
consensus) between those who hate the idea of slaving the root
zones, those who like the idea but don't want it to be the default,
and those who
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 06:26:46AM +0200, Thijs Eilander wrote:
If there is a consensus based on solid technical reasons (not emotion
or FUD) to back the root zone slaving change out, I'll be glad to do
so. I think it would be very useful at this point if those who _like_
the change would
On 12/23/-58 20:59, Doug Barton wrote:
Jo Rhett wrote:
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 01:32:42PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
This is about on par with unnamed network equipment
manufacturer selling SOHO routers that synchronize their
clocks using stratum-1 NTP servers.
I don't really think that
On Wednesday 01 August 2007 22:58:23 Volker wrote:
On 07/31/07 17:25, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
On Friday 13 July 2007 20:08:59 Volker wrote:
On 07/11/07 20:42, John Baldwin wrote:
This patch attempts to remove a gross hack with a slightly less
gross hack in order to avoid clobbering data in
Max Laier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 25 Jul 2007 1:35:
now available at: http://people.freebsd.org/~mlaier/PF41/ with
instructions how to build.
Thanks! I tested it, because I have some trouble with pf
Please test if possible and provide me with feedback.
The build has following problems:
On Wednesday 01 August 2007 16:58:46 Anish Mistry wrote:
On Tuesday 31 July 2007, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
On Friday 13 July 2007 20:08:59 Volker wrote:
On 07/11/07 20:42, John Baldwin wrote:
This patch attempts to remove a gross hack with a slightly less
gross hack in order to avoid clobbering
Max Laier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2 Aug 2007 17:13:
On Thursday 02 August 2007, Frank Behrens wrote:
The build has following problems:
- libexec/Makefile has still reference to ftp_proxy, removing that line
helped
That's in the patch, did you have a libexec/Makefile.rej?
Sorry, I
On Tuesday, 31. July 2007, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 01:31:59AM +0200, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
On Monday, 30. July 2007, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
Thanks for reporting. I don't have these hardware models so I couldn't
verify the issue. After reading the vendor's code
On Thursday 02 August 2007, Frank Behrens wrote:
Max Laier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2 Aug 2007 17:13:
On Thursday 02 August 2007, Frank Behrens wrote:
The build has following problems:
- libexec/Makefile has still reference to ftp_proxy, removing that
line helped
That's in the
On Thursday 02 August 2007, Frank Behrens wrote:
Max Laier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 25 Jul 2007 1:35:
now available at: http://people.freebsd.org/~mlaier/PF41/ with
instructions how to build.
Thanks! I tested it, because I have some trouble with pf
Please test if possible and provide
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 12:14:37PM -0500, Ted Hatfield wrote:
Can someone verify this bug for me please and suggest a fix.
Error description:
Using less -E or more to display a file that is less than a full page,
while then displaying a nonexistent file causes a segmentation fault.
I
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:32:42 -0700
Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The root server operators do not make changes in this kind of
abrupt fashion.
This, I think, is the root (sic) of the objections here in
FreeBSD land. I expect many people think the same of the FreeBSD
project - that it
Can someone verify this bug for me please and suggest a fix.
Error description:
Using less -E or more to display a file that is less than a full page,
while then displaying a nonexistent file causes a segmentation fault.
For example on a newly built system you can
less -E /etc/group
David Wolfskill wrote:
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 12:14:37PM -0500, Ted Hatfield wrote:
Can someone verify this bug for me please and suggest a fix.
Error description:
Using less -E or more to display a file that is less than a full page,
while then displaying a nonexistent file causes a
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 01:08:47PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
For me this is one of those intermittent faults. Sometimes it segfaults,
and sometimes it doesn't.
I can't reproduce this on any of the 3 systems I have easy access to,
either with less -E or more.
The less options I
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 01:08:47PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
For me this is one of those intermittent faults. Sometimes it segfaults,
and sometimes it doesn't.
I can't reproduce this on any of the 3 systems I have easy access to,
Hi,
Just for the record, I like the current solution, i.e.
default being a hint zone, and slave zones being
commented out, ready to be used for those who know
what they're doing.
However, I noticed that the refresh interval of the
root zone is 1800, i.e. it would be fetched every 30
minutes,
Oliver Fromme wrote:
Hi,
Just for the record, I like the current solution, i.e. default
being a hint zone, and slave zones being commented out, ready to
be used for those who know what they're doing.
Thanks.
However, I noticed that the refresh interval of the root zone is
1800, i.e. it
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 01:49:39PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
Oliver Fromme wrote:
Hi,
Just for the record, I like the current solution, i.e. default
being a hint zone, and slave zones being commented out, ready to
be used for those who know what they're doing.
I second this. And
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 01:49:39PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
Oliver Fromme wrote:
Hi,
Just for the record, I like the current solution, i.e. default
being a hint zone, and slave zones being commented out, ready
to be used for those who know what they're doing.
I
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 22:42:47 +0200 (CEST)
From: Oliver Fromme [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
Just for the record, I like the current solution, i.e.
default being a hint zone, and slave zones being
commented out, ready to be used for those who know
what they're doing.
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 01:49:39PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
Oliver Fromme wrote:
Hi,
Just for the record, I like the current solution, i.e. default
being a hint zone, and slave zones being commented out, ready
to be used for those who know what they're
Hi,
Just for the record, I like the current solution, i.e.
default being a hint zone, and slave zones being
commented out, ready to be used for those who know
what they're doing.
However, I noticed that the refresh interval of the
root zone is 1800, i.e. it would be fetched every 30
I've been using a stub root zone for years without a problem.
--
Christopher
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Doug Barton wrote:
Skip Ford wrote:
Just like I'd think everyone should sync with stratum-1 servers if
those operators supported everyone doing that.
I've already pointed out that this is a silly analogy, as the two
things have nothing in common. At the most basic level:
Individual
36 matches
Mail list logo
