Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 20:33:47 +1000 From: Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: named.conf restored to hint zone for the root by default Message-ID: <20070802103347.GA1393@k7.mavetju> In-Reply-To: <20070802103459.GI59008@menantico.com> References: <46B1AC75.9060907@FreeBSD.org> <20070802103459.GI59008@menantico.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 06:34:59AM -0400, Skip Ford wrote: > Doug Barton wrote: > > In an effort to find some kind of balance (I won't even try to say > > "consensus") between those who hate the idea of slaving the root > > zones, those who like the idea but don't want it to be the default, > > and those who like the idea, I've made the following change: > > > > 1. Change the default behavior back to using a hint zone for the root. > > 2. Leave the root slave zone config as a commented out example. > > 3. Remove the B and F root servers from the example at the request of > > their operators. > > > > I hope that we can now dial down the volume on the meta-issue of how > > the change was done, and focus on the operational issues of whether > > it's a good idea or not. > > Thanks. I'm afraid the consensus has to come from the operators, > not from FreeBSD folks. > > If the operators were required to support it, I think everyone > should slave the roots, not just those running busy servers. Just > like I'd think everyone should sync with stratum-1 servers if > those operators supported everyone doing that. pool.root-servers.net sounds like a good idea :-) Edwin -- Edwin Groothuis | Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org edwin@mavetju.org | Weblog: http://www.mavetju.org/weblog/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070802103347.GA1393>