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
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 OK this?
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 -
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:
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.
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.
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 about
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
downside
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 over
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 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, most of those
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 17:17:45 +0200
From: Antoine Jacoutot ajacou...@bsdfrog.org
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
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 ajacou...@bsdfrog.org
But be careful, this is not a user-editable file anymore, so we need
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 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:
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 17:17:45 +0200
From: Antoine Jacoutot ajacou...@bsdfrog.org
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
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.
17 matches
Mail list logo