Re: Socket buffer space?

2018-12-11 Thread Havard Eidnes
>> I don't suppose there exists a configuration option in BIND which >> corresponds to Unbound's so-rcvbuf: and so-sndbuf: configuration >> options? > > There is only `./configure --with-tuning=large` which enables > more sockets and bigger socket buffers. Hmm, I already have that, but I wonder, h

Re: Socket buffer space?

2018-12-11 Thread Tony Finch
Havard Eidnes wrote: > > I don't suppose there exists a configuration option in BIND which > corresponds to Unbound's so-rcvbuf: and so-sndbuf: configuration > options? There is only `./configure --with-tuning=large` which enables more sockets and bigger socket buffers. (I thought I also needed t

Socket buffer space?

2018-12-11 Thread Havard Eidnes
Hi, I don't suppose there exists a configuration option in BIND which corresponds to Unbound's so-rcvbuf: and so-sndbuf: configuration options? It would be useful to have those available to adjust only the "server sockets" BIND handle, instead of having to apply the corresponding settings system-

Re: no port randomization with dig over IPv6 on mac os

2018-12-11 Thread Jakob Dhondt
Hi all, thanks for your answers! Cheers, Jakob On 10.12.18 15:56, Tony Finch wrote: > Warren Kumari wrote: > >> I’m also wondering *how* it is doing this — to increment by 2 it sounds >> like there is state being kept - perhaps dig simply relies on the kernel >> for the source port and isn’t