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:
>
> Indiv
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]"
> 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 thos
> 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
> 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 t
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 t
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 thi
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,
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,
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,
ei
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
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 segment
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
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 bogusfi
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
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 an
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
> >
> >
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?
S
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
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 proble
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 avoi
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
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 >>> manufacturer> selling SOHO routers that synchronize their
clocks using stratum-1 NTP servers.
>>> I don't really think that analogy holds
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 wou
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 slow
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
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. Cha
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 foll
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 c
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 th
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
___
freebsd-s
33 matches
Mail list logo
