I currently run 9.9.9-P4 on recursive caching servers and with the
announcement that 9.9 and 9.10 are approaching end of maintenance, I've
decided it's time to move to 9.11.
Are there any issues, warnings, concerns in upgrading? Changes that need
to be made to named.conf? I know there are new
networks. As
mentioned in my initial message there were no problems with the name
servers to which those zones were delegated.
Oscar
On 11/09/2017 04:19 PM, Oscar Ricardo Silva wrote:
We use RFC1918 networks and have our authoritative servers configured to
resolve for those networks. Some
We use RFC1918 networks and have our authoritative servers configured to
resolve for those networks. Some of these RFC1918 networks are delegated
to departmental name servers.
This has been running well (or apparently well) for several years but a
few weeks ago one of our authoritative name se
I have several multi-homed caching servers and am using anycast. Each
server has it's native interface and then all of them advertise two
other IP addresses, 128.83.185.40 and 128.83.185.41. BIND only listens
on these other two IP addresses. There is no problem with this setup,
it works fine
On 09/20/2012 09:35 PM, Chris Buxton wrote:
On Sep 20, 2012, at 5:49 PM, Oscar Ricardo Silva wrote:
I have several recursive, caching BIND servers
[...]
The current servers are configured to forward any queries for our domain
straight to our authoritative servers
[...]
I've
On 09/21/2012 02:55 AM, Adam Tkac wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 07:49:08PM -0500, Oscar Ricardo Silva wrote:
I have several recursive, caching BIND servers that were running the
Redhat package of BIND. Our servers started crashing because of a
bug (previously identified AND fixed by ISC) so
I have several recursive, caching BIND servers that were running the
Redhat package of BIND. Our servers started crashing because of a bug
(previously identified AND fixed by ISC) so we've decided to ditch that
version and run from source, 9.9.1-P3. (I'm still not sure why redhat
decided to u
On 08/31/2012 04:20 PM, Kevin Darcy wrote:
On 8/31/2012 10:42 AM, Oscar Ricardo Silva wrote:
On 08/31/2012 08:22 AM, Kevin Darcy wrote:
On 8/31/2012 2:50 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Again, it's not about how effective the block is or can be. Unless
Italy
becomes like China or even worse
On 08/31/2012 08:22 AM, Kevin Darcy wrote:
On 8/31/2012 2:50 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Again, it's not about how effective the block is or can be. Unless Italy
becomes like China or even worse (but the US had the chance end up
almost in the same situation very recently, so this is NOT an
Ital
Bailey, Morgan [BT] wrote:
Hi all
We have recently made some major changes to our DNS infrastructure.
This involved consolidating servers and standardizing on a single RHEL6
platform. We currently running the latest RHEL6 packaged BIND release
of 9.8.2 (9.8.2rc1-RedHat-9.8.2-0.10.rc1.el6
(Sorry, forgot to include the right Subject line so re-sending)
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 17:40:51 -0500
> From: Oscar Ricardo Silva
> To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> Subject: Re: bind dies with assertion failure
> Message-ID: <4ff22373.2000...@mail.utexas.edu&
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 17:40:51 -0500
From: Oscar Ricardo Silva
To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: bind dies with assertion failure
Message-ID: <4ff22373.2000...@mail.utexas.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I may have missed something b
07/03/2012 01:16 AM, Oscar Ricardo Silva wrote:
>> I *THINK* I found the reason for why we're exposed to this bug ...
>> It would appear that Redhat based their BIND package on 9.8.2rc1.
>> Guess where the patch for this bug was applied? 9.8.2rc2.
> Are you sure abou
ug fix was included in BIND 9.8.2.
3284. [bug] Address race conditions with the handling of
rbtnode.deadlink. [RT #27738]
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 05:40:51PM -0500, Oscar Ricardo Silva wrote:
I may have missed something but has this been patched in a 9.8.x versi
I may have missed something but has this been patched in a 9.8.x version
of BIND? According to the 9.9.0 release notes this has been addressed
but just wondering about the availability for other vulnerable versions.
Also, is there a known trigger?
The reason I'm running is that we're current
15 matches
Mail list logo
