[51769] in North American Network Operators' Group
classless delegation [was: Re: IP address fee??]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter van Dijk)
Fri Sep 6 09:22:23 2002
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:21:51 +0200
From: Peter van Dijk <peter@dataloss.nl>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <200209061310.g86DAjbr022663@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 09:10:45AM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Sep 2002 14:42:39 +0200, Peter van Dijk <peter@dataloss.nl> said:
> > That is a common misconception. Recursing resolvers couldn't care less
> > if they are written according to spec (unlike old BIND versions, for
> > example).
>
> Well... way back when (18 months or so)...
I'm not referring to that particular problem, but read on.
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 18:11:34 PST, Paul Vixie <vixie@mfnx.net> said:
> >
> > pi@vuurwerk.nl (Pim van Riezen) writes:
> >
> > > bogosity while updating 8.2.2-P7 to 8.2.3:
> > >
> > > (1) 8.2.3 Doesn't accept the "(" in the SOA string to be on the next line
> > > after the IN SOA. Our script-generated zonefiles, about 45000 of them,
> > > all had this.
> >
> > Neither do the relevant RFC's, or any other DNS implementation. Pre-8.2.3
> > was simply _wrong_ to accept that syntax.
>
> If you want to be the *next* guy who gets bit for 45K zones when the *next*
> next release starts enforcing something that was illegal-but-worked-mostly,
> be my guest....
A fun note is that BIND, in that situation (I worked for Vuurwerk at
that time as well), just put some (high-ascii) garbage in the logfile
and segfaulted, instead of reporting a nice error.
Ofcourse it is also highly broken that the RFC specifies the zonefile
syntax.
[I think we're drifting offtopic here]
Greetz, Peter
--
peter@dataloss.nl | http://www.dataloss.nl/ | Undernet:#clue
