In message <54602b24-14d9-42b4-ad2e-55adf4805...@bordo.com.au>, James Brown wri
tes:
>
> On 11 Mar 2014, at 4:09 pm, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> >
> > I didn't think I would need to say "save the contents of the program to
> > conftest.c".
> >
> > cat > conftest.c << 'EOF'
> > #include
> > int
>
On 11 Mar 2014, at 4:09 pm, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> I didn't think I would need to say "save the contents of the program to
> conftest.c".
>
> cat > conftest.c << 'EOF'
> #include
> int
> main ()
> {
> FILE *f = fopen ("conftest.out", "w");
> return ferror (f) || fclose (f) != 0;
>
> ;
> ret
Mark Andrews writes:
>
> In message , James Brown w
> ri
> tes:
> >
> > On 11 Mar 2014, at 2:15 pm, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The first thing is that configure has decided that we are cross
> > > compiling which is because the simple executable did not run.
> > >
> > > configure:3472:
In message , James Brown wri
tes:
>
> On 11 Mar 2014, at 2:15 pm, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> >
> > The first thing is that configure has decided that we are cross
> > compiling which is because the simple executable did not run.
> >
> > configure:3472: checking whether we are cross compiling
> > con
On 11 Mar 2014, at 2:15 pm, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> The first thing is that configure has decided that we are cross
> compiling which is because the simple executable did not run.
>
> configure:3472: checking whether we are cross compiling
> configure:3510: result: yes
>
> I haven't upgraded
The first thing is that configure has decided that we are cross
compiling which is because the simple executable did not run.
configure:3472: checking whether we are cross compiling
configure:3510: result: yes
I haven't upgraded my machine to Mavericks yet so I can't test this.
The version of cl
Go back to the orginal configure args and post the errors from config.log.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mail
On 2014-03-10 15:05, Andreas Ntaflos wrote:
On 2014-03-10 22:23, Kevin Darcy wrote:
Options:
First, thanks a lot for the reply! So it seems what I described is
indeed the expected behaviour for the type of DNS we operate?
To put it another way, why wouldn't it? How would your local BIND kno
On 11 Mar 2014, at 3:05 am, Tony Finch wrote:
> Try
>
> LDFLAGS="-Wl,-R/usr/local/ssl/lib" ./configure --enable-threads --with-atf
> --enable-newstats --enable-rrl --with-ecdsa --with-gost
> --with-openssl=/usr/local/ssl
>
> Tony.
> --
> f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
> Malin: Variabl
On 3/10/2014 6:05 PM, Andreas Ntaflos wrote:
On 2014-03-10 22:23, Kevin Darcy wrote:
Options:
First, thanks a lot for the reply! So it seems what I described is
indeed the expected behaviour for the type of DNS we operate?
1) Change nameservice-switch order (e.g. /etc/nsswitch.conf) on you
On 2014-03-10 22:23, Kevin Darcy wrote:
Options:
First, thanks a lot for the reply! So it seems what I described is
indeed the expected behaviour for the type of DNS we operate?
1) Change nameservice-switch order (e.g. /etc/nsswitch.conf) on your
hosts to prefer another source of name resol
Options:
1) Change nameservice-switch order (e.g. /etc/nsswitch.conf) on your
hosts to prefer another source of name resolution (e.g. /etc/hosts)
which can resolve the shortname. Thus DNS is never used for these lookups
2) Simply :-) change your DNS architecture fundamentally, from one which
f
Hi list,
I hope I succeeded in articulating the problem we are facing and I
apologize for the length of this post.
Short version:
Using Bind 9 on Ubuntu 12.04 for internal DNS (master for zones
"dc01.example.at.", "7.1.10.in-addr.arpa.", ...) with forwarders (ISP's
nameservers) for everything ou
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:38:34PM +, Graham Clinch wrote:
This isn't quite what I see with inline-signing on 9.9.5:
If I switch from NSEC to NSEC3, my zone continues to have an NSEC chain
until the moment it has an NSEC3 chain.
If I replace an existing NSEC3 chain with a new salt, I seem
Evan Hunt wrote:
>
> What should happen is:
>
> - the old NSEC3PARAM is removed
Isn't that a bit early? Can a secondary transfer the zone while there is
no NSEC3PARAM?
> - a private-type record is created, indicating that a
>new NSEC3 chain is being created
> - all the new NSEC3 records a
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:38:34PM +, Graham Clinch wrote:
> This isn't quite what I see with inline-signing on 9.9.5:
>
> If I switch from NSEC to NSEC3, my zone continues to have an NSEC chain
> until the moment it has an NSEC3 chain.
>
> If I replace an existing NSEC3 chain with a new sal
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014, Maechler Philippe wrote:
How do you manage your IPv6 Reverse Entries?
Let's assume that we have a /32 IPv6 subnet for our needs and that we only
publish PTR records where they are needed like for mail servers and maybe
DNS and web servers.
Our Network is: 2001:db8::/32
This
On Mar 10, 2014, at 8:28 AM, Maechler Philippe wrote:
> Let´s assume that we have a /32 IPv6 subnet for our needs and that we only
> publish PTR records where they are needed like for mail servers and maybe DNS
> and web servers.
>
>
> Our Network is: 2001:db8::/32
> This would give us a Zo
James Brown wrote:
> I have recently upgraded to openSSL 1.0.1f.
>
> When I try to configure bind 9.9.5 I'm getting an error:
>
> checking for OpenSSL library... using OpenSSL from /usr/local/ssl/lib and
> /usr/local/ssl/include
> checking whether linking with OpenSSL works... no
> configure: er
Hello bind-users
How do you manage your IPv6 Reverse Entries?
Let´s assume that we have a /32 IPv6 subnet for our needs and that we only
publish PTR records where they are needed like for mail servers and maybe DNS
and web servers.
Our Network is: 2001:db8::/32
This would give us a Zo
Hi,
Sorry to hijack this older thread, but..
rndc signing -nsec3param ...
I would expect the old NSEC3 chain and old NSEC3PARAM record to be
removed, once the new chain is in place.
(Similarly, the new NSEC3PARAM record will not appear in the zone until
the new NSEC3 chain has been completely
21 matches
Mail list logo
