f



Re: bind 9(.2.4) on solaris 10 #2

> I wish it were that simple for me. Unfortunately I have corporate 
> requirements and restrictions to work with and one of them happens to be 
> to have IPv6 disabled everywhere. =P

	So short sighted ...
	One could argue that 6to4 is only IPv4 :-)
 
> Speaking of which, there appears to be a named.conf directive called 
> "listen-on-v6". Would the "listen-on" version imply IPv4 only? If so, 
> that would be an acceptable workaround.
> 
> -Alex

	No.  Named will make queries over IPv6 even if it won't accept
	them.
 
> Mark Andrews wrote:
> > 	You know there is a simple solution.  Get IPv6 connectivity.
> > 	If your ISP doesn't provide it there are plenty of tunnel
> > 	brokers that will provide connectivity, often for free.
> > 	That's how my home network get IPv6 connectivity.
> > 
> > 	If you don't won't is use a tunnel then set up 6to4 support.
> > 
> > 	Mark
> > 
> > 	Note you will need IPv6 connectivity within the next few years.
> > --
> > Mark Andrews, ISC
> > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@isc.org
> > 
> 
> 
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@isc.org


0
Mark
6/6/2006 2:12:49 AM
comp.protocols.dns.bind 16245 articles. 1 followers. Post Follow

0 Replies
489 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 14

Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Re: Can I have a HPUX bind 4.9.7 slaved to a Solaris bind 9.2.2 master ?
>>>>> "Terry" == Terry Pike <terry.j.pike@gsk.com> writes: Terry> I have a HPUX bind 4.9.7 master server that I want to Terry> convert to a slave server. I want to create a new master Terry> on Solaris bind 9.2.2. Terry> Question: will the V4.9.7 server accept zone transfers from Terry> V9.2.2 ?? Of course. Why shouldn't it? The zone transfer protocol hasn't changed. However BIND9 by default tries a more efficient data transfer scheme that long-dead stuff like BIND4 doesn't understand. This behaviour ...

Re: Migration from BIND 4.9 to 9.2 or Microsoft DNS #2
Mokwena Motseto <MotsetM@sapo.co.za> wrote: >> Do you know of any problems I might encounter if I migrate to Microsoft >> DNS I don't what version it is, or if it has versions at all phn@icke-reklam.ipsec.nu replied: > You won't get support from this forum :-) Sorry to disappoint Peter, but there have been discussions of the interaction between MS W2k (or W2k+3) DNS Server and BIND in the on this list (and on its now-defunct sister list bind9-users@isc.org). Check the list archives. Discussions of BIND interoperability with other DNS software is n...

Can I have a HPUX bind 4.9.7 slaved to a Solaris bind 9.2.2 master ?
I have a HPUX bind 4.9.7 master server that I want to convert to a slave server. I want to create a new master on Solaris bind 9.2.2. Question: will the V4.9.7 server accept zone transfers from V9.2.2 ?? Terry Pike <terry.j.pike@gsk.com> wrote: > I have a HPUX bind 4.9.7 master server that I want to convert to a > slave server. I want to create a new master on Solaris bind 9.2.2. > Question: will the V4.9.7 server accept zone transfers from V9.2.2 ?? A better question : why don't you upgrade to bind 9.2.3 ? -- Peter H�kanson IPSec...

Re: BIND 9.4.2 on Solaris 8 #2
> >> Greetings, > >> > >> Newly compiled BIND 9.4.2 on Solaris 8 kicks errors like below, Although > >> named *appears* to be listening and functioning fine. > >> > >> Anyone have ideas what would cause the below errors? > > > > lib/isc/unix/entropy.c > > /* > > * Solaris 2.5.1 does not have support for sockets (S_IFSOCK), > > * but it does return type S_IFIFO (the OS believes that > > * the socket is a fifo). This may be an issue if we tell > > * the program to look at an actual FIFO as its source of > > * entropy. > > */ > > #if defined(S_ISSOCK) > > if (S_ISSOCK(_stat.st_mode)) > > is_usocket = ISC_TRUE; > > #endif > > #if defined(S_ISFIFO) && defined(sun) > > if (S_ISFIFO(_stat.st_mode)) > > is_usocket = ISC_TRUE; > > #endif > > > > Turn "defined(S_ISFIFO) && defined(sun)" into "0". > > > > Mark > > > >> 29-Nov-2007 15:56:27.069 starting BIND 9.4.2 -c /etc/named.conf -4 -g > >> 29-Nov-2007 15:56:27.091 loading configuration from '/etc/named.conf' > >> 29-Nov-2007 15:56:27.095 no IPv6 interfaces found > >> 29-Nov-2007 15:56:27.098 listening on IPv4 interface lo0, 127.0.0...

Bind 9.2.4 slaving problem [bind 9.2.1 and bind 8.3.3]
Greetings. I have a master name server running BIND 9.2.1 [Debian Woody - server not available on the Internet] and a slave server running bind 9.2.4 [Debian Sarge - not currently available on the Internet] and two others running bind 8.3.3 [Debian Woody - on the Internet]. The 9.2.1 is a master for all the others to slave from. I have an entry in a zone defined on the master as the following: > $ORIGIN example.com. > spamhaus-datafeed IN NS local-rbl-a > spamhaus-datafeed IN NS local-rbl-b When I issue the following command: #> host -t nx spam...

Re: bind 9(.2.4) on solaris 10
> Hello, > > I am having a problem running Sun's bundled named(1M), which I > understand is version 9.2.4. A few google searches suggests that this > version is susceptible to a bug in where some ipv6 logic is invoked, > imposing a ~2s delay in non-cached lookups. Apparently this version > lacks the "-4" option, which would allow me to disable the ipv6 code at > run-time. > > Does anybody out there know how to work around this issue? I would > prefer to use the bundled version if possible. > > Thanks in advance! > > -Alex You know there is a simple solution. Get IPv6 connectivity. If your ISP doesn't provide it there are plenty of tunnel brokers that will provide connectivity, often for free. That's how my home network get IPv6 connectivity. If you don't won't is use a tunnel then set up 6to4 support. Mark Note you will need IPv6 connectivity within the next few years. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@isc.org In article <e62nbf$2trc$1@sf1.isc.org>, Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I am having a problem running Sun's bundled named(1M), which I > > understand is version 9.2.4. A few google searches suggests that this > > version is susceptible to a bug in where s...

Re: Performance of Bind 9.2.3 vs BIND 4.8.3 #2
>>>>> "nishant" == nishant <nishant80@gmail.com> writes: nishant> But still i need to show that 'performance' wise BIND 9 nishant> is better than BIND 4. My previous posting did that. nishant> Can u please help me in deciding what kind of tests nishant> should i really be doing to show that BIND 9 'performs' nishant> better (or much better, as you say) than BIND 4? Look, stop wasting your time on this pointless make-work exercise. BIND4 is DEAD. Nobody should be running it. Consult the list arch...

RE: Re: Migration from BIND 4.9 to 9.2 or Microsoft DNS
Hi Sorry for the misunderstanding I was not looking for support, I was just asking from people, who have been in the same situation that I am in now What influenced their decision to choose what ever they chose to go with -----Original Message----- From: bind-users-bounce@isc.org [mailto:bind-users-bounce@isc.org] On Behalf Of phn@icke-reklam.ipsec.nu Sent: 11 October 2004 21:21 To: comp-protocols-dns-bind@isc.org Subject: Re: Migration from BIND 4.9 to 9.2 or Microsoft DNS Mokwena Motseto <MotsetM@sapo.co.za> wrote: > Hi > We are currently running BIND 4...

Re: bind 9(.2.4) on solaris 10 #3
> In article <e62nbf$2trc$1@sf1.isc.org>, > Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I am having a problem running Sun's bundled named(1M), which I > > > understand is version 9.2.4. A few google searches suggests that this > > > version is susceptible to a bug in where some ipv6 logic is invoked, > > > imposing a ~2s delay in non-cached lookups. Apparently this version > > > lacks the "-4" option, which would allow me to disable the ipv6 code at > > > run-time. > > > > > > Does anybody out there know how to work around this issue? I would > > > prefer to use the bundled version if possible. > > > > > > Thanks in advance! > > > > > > -Alex > > > > You know there is a simple solution. Get IPv6 connectivity. > > It's a shame the simple solution isn't to get the latest version of BIND > from your supplier. We also have Solaris 10 machines whose admins are > not keen to run anything other than the bundled software. Is there > anything ISC can do to persuade their supporters to upgrade? The latest version won't help much as Solaris does not fully implement the BSD socket API. sendto() and sendmsg() do not return a error when there is no route to the destination. Sun are aware of this and ...

Re: BIND 9.4.0b1
JD wrote: >> Configure/Build/Install all works fine. Runs excellent chrooted under >> SMF control. >> >> However, is there any reason that the Bind 9.4.x series now consumes >> so much ram (well over 24MB) - even at startup with under 20 domains? >> >> Older version of Bind9 never seemed to consume much ram and I dont >> see any configure options or things I could remove to lessen the >> demands of ram.. and Mark Andrews replied: > 9.4.0 also has more default zones than 9.3.x/9.2.x. > See draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-00.txt > The RFC 1918 zone are targeted for 9.5.0/9.6.0. In the distribution of 9.3.2, RFCs 1918 and 3330, both referenced in this IETF draft, are not in the doc/rfc directory. Should they be included? Should this draft also be included? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Barry S. Finkel Computing and Information Systems Division Argonne National Laboratory Phone: +1 (630) 252-7277 9700 South Cass Avenue Facsimile:+1 (630) 252-4601 Building 222, Room D209 Internet: BSFinkel@anl.gov Argonne, IL 60439-4828 IBMMAIL: I1004994 ...

Migration from BIND 4.9 to 9.2 or Microsoft DNS #2
Hi We are currently running BIND 4.9 and we are under pressure to migrate at least to version 8 or 9 But there is a possibility of moving to a microsoft DNS on windows 2003 Our ISP's who host secondary zones for our domains are running BIND ver 9 What I want you guys to help me out with is the following Do you know of any problems I might encounter if I migrate to BIND ver 9 (latest) Do you know of any problems I might encounter if I migrate to Microsoft DNS I don't what version it is, or if it has versions at all Mokwena Motseto ...

[bind-users]Up-gradation of Bind 8.2.2 to Bind 9 on AIX 4.3.3
Hello, I have installed Bind 8.2.2 on AIX 4.3.3. Now we want to up-grade it to Bind9. Pl. Anyone know , how to up-grade Bind 8.2.2 to Bind 9 on AIX 4.3.3. ?? regards, Network Admin GNFC Ltd. India Ph: 91 79 26854515 postmaster@gnvfc.net wrote: > Hello, > I have installed Bind 8.2.2 on AIX 4.3.3. Now we want to up-grade it to Bind9. Pl. Anyone know , how to up-grade Bind 8.2.2 to Bind 9 on AIX 4.3.3. ?? > regards, > Network Admin > GNFC Ltd. > India > Ph: 91 79 26854515 Get the source from isc.org, unpack, read the documentation and go ahead. ...

Re: BIND 8.2.7 master ixfr to 9.2.2 slave #4
At 1:59 PM -0400 2005-05-04, Mike Mitchell wrote: > About once a day I have a BIND 9.2.2 slave truncate a zone after an IXFR > from a BIND 8 master. The packet trace shows the master sending an IXFR > response containing only two SOA records. Don't use IXFR with BIND-8. The code changed multiple times, and was always not-quite-there. Use AXFR, or some other means to get the information transmitted. Or upgrade to BIND-9, where IXFR was finally made to work right. -- Brad Knowles, <brad@stop.mail-abuse.org> "Those who would give up essential ...

Re: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Johnny- > > > > ACE VERSION: 5.4.3 > > > > > > > > HOST MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM: > > > > Solaris10 X86 > > > > TARGET MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM, if different from HOST: > > > > COMPILER NAME AND VERSION (AND PATCHLEVEL): > > > > Compiler: SUN CC 5.6 > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > I don't think the DOC group supports this compiler anymore.. More > > particularly this compiler is buggy and you may land up with ...

Re: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Johnny- > Ok, the problem is in platform_sunos5_sunc++.GNU, when a not known forte > version is found, it defaults to explicit. I am updating right now, for 4.2 > and 5.3 we default to explicit, for all others to implicit Is this necessary? I mean make it implicit by default. The explicit is not even supported, and has no chance to work cleanly. Why should we patch broken stuff. Just a thought? > Qinghuajin and other Forte 9 users, you can work around this by added the > following line to your platform_macros.GNU file. > templates = implicit This is until w...

RE: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Hi, > > Ok, the problem is in platform_sunos5_sunc++.GNU, when a > not known forte > > version is found, it defaults to explicit. I am updating > right now, for 4.2 > > and 5.3 we default to explicit, for all others to implicit > > Is this necessary? I mean make it implicit by default. The > explicit is > not even supported, and has no chance to work cleanly. Why > should we patch > broken stuff. Just a thought? I have thought also about this, but maybe there are users around we don't know if. We can drop all this after x.5 i...

RE: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
> Ok. Steve, could you maybe make clear with the build names > which builds use explicit templates? I'll try to get this clarified. > Explicit templates in TAO are known to be broken at this > moment. None of the tests at Riverace try to build TAO. -Steve ...

Re: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Hi > > ACE VERSION: 5.4.3 > > > > HOST MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM: > > Solaris10 X86 > > TARGET MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM, if different from HOST: > > COMPILER NAME AND VERSION (AND PATCHLEVEL): > > Compiler: SUN CC 5.6 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I don't think the DOC group supports this compiler anymore.. More particularly this compiler is buggy and you may land up with unresolved symbols even if you get past this part. My $0.02. Thanks Bala > > Make: ...

RE: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Hi, > > > ACE VERSION: 5.4.3 > > > > > > HOST MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM: > > > Solaris10 X86 > > > TARGET MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM, if different from HOST: > > > COMPILER NAME AND VERSION (AND PATCHLEVEL): > > > Compiler: SUN CC 5.6 > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > I don't think the DOC group supports this compiler anymore.. More > particularly this compiler is buggy and you may land up with > unresolved > symbols even if you get past this pa...

RE: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Hi, > > > I don't think the DOC group supports this compiler anymore.. More > > > particularly this compiler is buggy and you may land up with > > > unresolved > > > symbols even if you get past this part. > > > > I missed the compiler version. But, Forte 8 gives output of > SUN C++ 5.5. Ok, the problem is in platform_sunos5_sunc++.GNU, when a not known forte version is found, it defaults to explicit. I am updating right now, for 4.2 and 5.3 we default to explicit, for all others to implicit Qinghuajin and other Forte...

RE: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Hi Steve, > > Is this necessary? I mean make it implicit by default. The > > explicit is > > not even supported, and has no chance to work cleanly. Why > > should we patch > > broken stuff. Just a thought? > > At least for ACE 5.5, Riverace supports the Forte compiler that > requires explicit. After that, we can drop it. Ok. Steve, could you maybe make clear with the build names which builds use explicit templates? Explicit templates in TAO are known to be broken at this moment. Johnny ...

Re: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Hi Everyon: My SunBlade 150 is back up and available, and has a Sun CC license, though I don't have a lot of bandwidth to admin it. Bala know where it is and has the root password. I'll probably move it into the server room once I have a chance to talk to Dan about it, but I my be out of town this week. [dhinton@blade DRM]$ uname -a SunOS blade 5.9 Generic_112233-03 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Blade-100 Solaris [dhinton@blade DRM]$ CC -V CC: Forte Developer 7 C++ 5.4 2002/03/09 [dhinton@blade DRM]$ gcc --version gcc (GCC) 3.4.2 Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, ...

RE: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Hi, > >> It's almost up. There are some issues with installing software as > >> we don't have the media in a compatible form yet. We also don't > >> have Sun CC, and we need to purchase a licence if we need to > >> support Sun CC. > > Ok, that's fine - thanks for the update. I think some other folks > (e.g., LMCO ATL and Remedy) have Solaris 9/10 and Sun CC, so we may > not need to worry about running Sun CC on our machine. Johnny/Gautam, > can you folks please confirm/deny whether you've got Sun CC on Solar...

RE: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
> > Ok, the problem is in platform_sunos5_sunc++.GNU, when a > not known forte > > version is found, it defaults to explicit. I am updating > right now, for 4.2 > > and 5.3 we default to explicit, for all others to implicit This sounds good. > Is this necessary? I mean make it implicit by default. The > explicit is > not even supported, and has no chance to work cleanly. Why > should we patch > broken stuff. Just a thought? At least for ACE 5.5, Riverace supports the Forte compiler that requires explicit. After that, we can drop it....

Web resources about - Re: bind 9(.2.4) on solaris 10 #2 - comp.protocols.dns.bind

Solaris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ;additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the ...

The Solari Report Blog - The Solari Report Blog
Disclaimer Nothing on The Solari Report should be taken as individual investment advice. Anyone seeking investment advice for his or her personal ...

Solaris Books
Publishers of Science-Fiction, Fantasy and Dark Fantasy

Welcome to Solaris Mobile Online » Solaris Mobile solarismobile.com
Your default description here Home About Us Services Media Contact Us Wireless Wideband Communication for the Mobile Age Solaris Mobile leads ...

Open Directory - Computers: Software: Operating Systems: Unix: Solaris
Solaris Operating System - Gateway page to knowledge base, forums, patches, hardware guide, online support center, marketing materials, product ...

Chris Solari (@chrissolari) on Twitter
Log in Sign up To bring you Twitter, we and our partners use cookies on our and other websites. Cookies help personalize Twitter content, tailor ...

Solaris - Flickr - Photo Sharing!
En grande -large size See where this picture was taken. [?]

Israeli 2010 Cleantech Open Winner - Solaris Synergy - YouTube
Solaris Synergy, winners of first prize in the Israeli national Cleantech Open Competition, for their Floating Concentrating Photovoltaic Systems, ...

Oracle wants an illegal monopoly on Solaris support, company alleges
An independent Solaris OS support provider has countersued Oracle for unfair competition and violation of U.S. antitrust laws.

Can toilet paper be a luxury product? Solaris attacks $1.4b oligopoly
Solaris Paper head Terry Hughes is going up-market with a toilet paper brand called Emporia, tackling the $1.4 billion oligopoly in Australia's ...

Resources last updated: 2/20/2016 9:00:53 PM