Re: Secondary Zone 'Raw' File format

2012-05-05 Thread Evan Hunt
> I understand as you say that its the wire format, but for info is it > proprietary or is it related to the message standards defined in RFC > 1035. > or is it something else It's not exactly RFC 1035 wire format; it's just similar. There's no f

Re: Secondary Zone 'Raw' File format

2012-05-05 Thread Dave Carey
Just one follow up question Evan I understand as you say that its the wire format, but for info is it proprietary or is it related to the message standards defined in RFC 1035. or is it something else Cheers Dave On 4 May 2012 18:47, Evan Hunt

Re: Secondary Zone 'Raw' File format

2012-05-04 Thread Evan Hunt
> The other things that changed in BIND 9.9 is that there is a new version > of the "raw" format (as in "-F raw=1" versus "-F raw=0" in named-checkzone, > q.v. its man page). You're right, I forgot that bit. > What was the motivation for that change? It's for inline signing. Raw format 1 has an

Re: Secondary Zone 'Raw' File format

2012-05-04 Thread Chris Thompson
On May 4 2012, Evan Hunt wrote: A new option was added in 9.9 to cache slave zones in 'raw' format rather than text format. That's actually always been an option ("masterfile-format raw;") Well, if "always" is taken to mean "since BIND 9.4" :-)

Re: Secondary Zone 'Raw' File format

2012-05-04 Thread Evan Hunt
> A new option was added in 9.9 to cache slave zones in 'raw' format rather > than text format. That's actually always been an option ("masterfile-format raw;") and is recommended for servers with a lot of slave zones because it reduces startup time considerably--it takes about half as long to loa

Secondary Zone 'Raw' File format

2012-05-04 Thread Dave Carey
Hi Guys A new option was added in 9.9 to cache slave zones in 'raw' format rather than text format. Is there any specific documentation on what the format of this 'raw' format actually is? thanks Dave ___ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/list