From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 1 21:08:04 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BDFC16A41A; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:08:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from skip@menantico.com) Received: from vms044pub.verizon.net (vms044pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF03113C478; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:08:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from skip@menantico.com) Received: from mx.menantico.com ([71.168.196.161]) by vms044.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JM40034E5D8S5I1@vms044.mailsrvcs.net>; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:07:57 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:13:20 -0400 From: Skip Ford In-reply-to: <46B0EDEA.8050608@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton Mail-followup-to: Doug Barton , FreeBSD Current , FreeBSD Stable Message-id: <20070801211320.GE59008@menantico.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline References: <46B01D5E.6050004@psg.com> <20070801110727.GC59008@menantico.com> <46B0EDEA.8050608@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: FreeBSD Current , FreeBSD Stable Subject: Re: default dns config change causing major poolpah X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:08:04 -0000 Doug Barton wrote: > If there is a consensus based on solid technical reasons (not emotion > or FUD) to back the root zone slaving change out, If that's a shot at me, you're out of line. I specifically said I didn't have an axe to grind with anyone, and I never piled on in my comments. The reason I provided *is* purely technical. The roots can decide tomorrow to block AXFR requests from FreeBSD users who install 6.3-RELEASE or 7.0-RELEASE. They may. They may not. But they can. It's not a production feature and therefore should not be relied upon. If the operators state they will support AXFR for the life of those releases, I have no objections. Such a statement would indicate all at once that they don't mind the traffic and that such a config will not break. I haven't kept up-to-date with cached(8) but if we're able to cache lookups now without a name server, we don't even need BIND in the base system anymore IMO. We still have very well maintained ports. -- Skip