From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Sep 30 13:50:27 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 373FB37B404 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:50:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.thundernet.cz (mail.thundernet.cz [62.77.87.114]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C997643E4A for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:50:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from neuhauser@bellavista.cz) Received: (qmail 27075 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2002 07:23:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO freepuppy.bellavista.cz) (62.168.44.50) by mail.thundernet.cz with SMTP; 30 Sep 2002 07:23:39 -0000 Received: by freepuppy.bellavista.cz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 981582FDAB2; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:23:30 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:23:30 +0200 From: Roman Neuhauser To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: named rejecting all kinds of serials Message-ID: <20020930072330.GC30361@freepuppy.bellavista.cz> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20020928151840.GV30361@freepuppy.bellavista.cz> <200209282051.g8SKp8mV097314@lurza.secnetix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200209282051.g8SKp8mV097314@lurza.secnetix.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG # olli@secnetix.de / 2002-09-28 22:51:08 +0200: > Roman Neuhauser wrote: > > # olli@secnetix.de / 2002-09-28 15:48:00 +0200: > > > Bye the way, RFC 1912 is definitely recommended reading for > > > anybody who operates a name server or who is responsible > > > for zone files. > > > > Heh, RFC 1912 (and the others) are definitely recommended reading > > for anybody who operates the BIND name server, > > No, I disagree, it is recommended reading for everone who > operates name service, no matter if it's BIND or Microsoft > Domain Wizard or whatever it might be called. Large parts > of the RFC are not BIND-specific, including the handling > of serial numbers, which is the topic of this thread. Not all content dns servers use zone transfers. Reusing my RFC 2821 example: MTA configuration files format is not part of the SMTP protocol or any of the related RFC AFAICT, and distributing the configuration in failover setups thus cannot be either. I don't see why it should. In fact, DNS as defined by the relevant RFCs differs from other internet protocols like HTTP so much it's funny. HTTP doesn't dictate redundant servers, SMTP does neither, nor any other internet protocol. Redundant DNS servers don't provide any protection, either. Besides, what good is that clients can resolve your address using one of a few content DNS servers if the, say, web server whose address they resolve is down? > > Your advice was actually very much to the point, Janine obviously > > runs BIND. I just find it hilarious that RFCs are a viable way of > > documenting an implementation (as opposed to a principle). > > BIND is the reference implementation of DNS, and I guess > it is the most complete and correct one. Apache is the reference implementation of the HTTP protocol, yet the relevant RFCs don't cover distributing httpd.conf among one's redundant apache installations. -- begin 666 nonexistent.vbs FreeBSD 4.7-RC 8:57AM up 12 days, 16:11, 12 users, load averages: 0.01, 0.02, 0.00 end To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message