On 2014/07/16 11:02, Craig R. Skinner wrote:
> On 2014-07-15 Tue 16:04 PM |, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > >On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:22:37PM +0100, Craig R. Skinner wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Suggestion of add NSD, Unbound & BIND control ports to /etc/services:
> > >
> > >Makes sense to me. Anyone want to
On 2014-07-15 Tue 16:04 PM |, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:22:37PM +0100, Craig R. Skinner wrote:
> >>
> >> Suggestion of add NSD, Unbound & BIND control ports to /etc/services:
> >
> >Makes sense to me. Anyone want to OK this?
> >
> >> Index: etc/services
> >> ==
>BIND uses TCP for the control socket, so if this does go in, please
>do not list the UDP one.
Correct. For any service that runs on only one protocol, do not list the
other protocol.
>> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 17:17:45 +0200
>> From: Antoine Jacoutot
>>
>> But be careful, this is not a user-editable file anymore, so we need
>> to take into account that some stuffs that may not appear obvious to
>> us may still be needed by people.
>
>That's a mistake. You're supposed to be ab
>On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:22:37PM +0100, Craig R. Skinner wrote:
>>
>> Suggestion of add NSD, Unbound & BIND control ports to /etc/services:
>
>Makes sense to me. Anyone want to OK this?
>
>> Index: etc/services
>> ===
>> RCS file:
previously on this list Claudio Jeker contributed:
> IMO /etc/services should not be overwritten on upgrade.
> Also if people are careful and only append at the end then merging the
> file with sysmerge should be trivial.
Isn't it trivial to sysmerge in any case? Then again so is adding a line
to
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 05:53:36PM +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 05:51:46PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 17:17:45 +0200
> > > From: Antoine Jacoutot
> > >
> > > But be careful, this is not a user-editable file anymore, so we need
> > > to tak
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 05:51:46PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 17:17:45 +0200
> > From: Antoine Jacoutot
> >
> > But be careful, this is not a user-editable file anymore, so we need
> > to take into account that some stuffs that may not appear obvious to
> > us may stil
> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 17:17:45 +0200
> From: Antoine Jacoutot
>
> But be careful, this is not a user-editable file anymore, so we need
> to take into account that some stuffs that may not appear obvious to
> us may still be needed by people.
That's a mistake. You're supposed to be able to ad
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 04:35:58PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2014/07/15 17:17, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> > > > Well it depends what policy we want. Looking at the file most entries
> > > > have both even if only one protocol is effectively in use.
> > >
> > > Looking at the file though,
On 2014/07/15 17:17, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> > > Well it depends what policy we want. Looking at the file most entries
> > > have both even if only one protocol is effectively in use.
> >
> > Looking at the file though, most of those are older entries - I think
>
> Yes. The reason is this:
> "
> > Well it depends what policy we want. Looking at the file most entries have
> > both even if only one protocol is effectively in use.
>
> Looking at the file though, most of those are older entries - I think
Yes. The reason is this:
"
# Note that it is presently the policy of IANA to assign a
On 2014/07/15 16:35, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> > I'll discuss tweaks to the diff below but I'm in two minds about whether
> > we want it. We don't enable the control socket in unbound by default at
> > present (there is a diff somewhere to move this to unix domain sockets
> > which we'd much prefer
> I'll discuss tweaks to the diff below but I'm in two minds about whether
> we want it. We don't enable the control socket in unbound by default at
> present (there is a diff somewhere to move this to unix domain sockets
> which we'd much prefer over network sockets..) Be aware, there is a
> downs
On 2014/07/15 15:51, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:22:37PM +0100, Craig R. Skinner wrote:
> >
> > Suggestion of add NSD, Unbound & BIND control ports to /etc/services:
> Makes sense to me. Anyone want to OK this?
I'll discuss tweaks to the diff below but I'm in two minds a
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:06:10AM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
> Le 2014-07-15 09:51, Antoine Jacoutot a écrit :
> >>+unbound-cntl 8953/tcp# Unbound validating,
> >>recursive, and caching DNS server control
>
> The IANA name for this port is "ub-dns-control".
>
>
Le 2014-07-15 09:51, Antoine Jacoutot a écrit :
+unbound-cntl 8953/tcp# Unbound validating,
recursive, and caching DNS server control
The IANA name for this port is "ub-dns-control".
http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-number
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:22:37PM +0100, Craig R. Skinner wrote:
>
> Suggestion of add NSD, Unbound & BIND control ports to /etc/services:
Makes sense to me. Anyone want to OK this?
> Index: etc/services
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/
Suggestion of add NSD, Unbound & BIND control ports to /etc/services:
Index: etc/services
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/etc/services,v
retrieving revision 1.87
diff -u -p -r1.87 services
--- etc/services12 Jul 2014 14:51:07 -
19 matches
Mail list logo
