[34284] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roeland Meyer)
Fri Feb 2 05:01:41 2001
Message-ID: <9DC8BBAD4FF100408FC7D18D1F092286039C1C@condor.mhsc.com>
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
To: 'Joshua Goodall' <joshua@roughtrade.net>,
"Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 01:59:34 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> From: Joshua Goodall [mailto:joshua@roughtrade.net]
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 12:52 AM
> I can understand the annoyance felt by a large hosting
> provider updating
> BIND in an emergency and finding more than just a security
> fix. Pim is, I
> guess, concerned that similar updates in future may have longer MTTR
> impact. Pete Elke's point about preproduction testing could
> perhaps be
> turned from a combative tone to the constructive without loss of
> information.
Isn't that why NSI is running a stealth master root server ... so they _are
able_ to do pre-production testing of zone files? In the past few years,
there were a lot of root server outages that would have been prevented by
that practice.
