Doug Barton wrote:
Oliver Fromme wrote:
By the way, I have changed from hints to slaves on the DNS
servers for a large server farm (just testing right now;
I might go back to hints if I don't feel it's worth it).
Depending on how many name servers you have you might get a
On Aug 2, 2007, at 18:16, Kevin Oberman wrote:
Also, the root zone is updated twice a day, every day (at least to the
extent of a serial number bump) whether it is needed or not.
Forcing the
minimum refresh to once a day could delay the recognition of a new
zone
for up to a day and that is
Jo Rhett wrote:
On Aug 3, 2007, at 6:12 PM, John Merryweather Cooper wrote:
I would appreciate it if the personal attacks ceased.
There was no personal attack there. I never called him names or made
any remark about his lifestyle or anything else. I did say that he
isn't paying attention
Oliver Fromme wrote:
By the way, I have changed from hints to slaves on the DNS
servers for a large server farm (just testing right now;
I might go back to hints if I don't feel it's worth it).
Depending on how many name servers you have you might get a bigger win
by slaving the root to one
Doug Barton wrote:
Oliver Fromme wrote:
However, I noticed that the refresh interval of the root zone is
1800, i.e. it would be fetched every 30 minutes,
No, refresh is how often the master servers are checked for serial
number changes.
True, I forgot about that. Thanks for
On Aug 2, 2007, at 3:05 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
I hope that we can now dial down the volume on the meta-issue of how
the change was done, and focus on the operational issues of whether
it's a good idea or not.
Which has been answered to you, repeatedly, by the very people who
know this best.
On Aug 3, 2007, at 5:25 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
I'm getting tired of repeating this. A lot of really smart people
are lined up on BOTH sides of this issue. You might want to take
another look at the threads about this on the OARC list (or even
this list for that matter) and try to have an
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Aug 2, 2007, at 3:05 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
I hope that we can now dial down the volume on the meta-issue of how
the change was done, and focus on the operational issues of whether
it's a good idea or not.
Which has been answered to you, repeatedly, by
On Aug 3, 2007, at 6:12 PM, John Merryweather Cooper wrote:
I would appreciate it if the personal attacks ceased.
There was no personal attack there. I never called him names or made
any remark about his lifestyle or anything else. I did say that he
isn't paying attention to the people
Jo Rhett wrote:
On Aug 3, 2007, at 5:25 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
I'm getting tired of repeating this. A lot of really smart people are
lined up on BOTH sides of this issue. You might want to take another
look at the threads about this on the OARC list (or even this list for
that matter) and try
-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 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
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
23 matches
Mail list logo
