From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 18 09:15:45 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04EFB1065694; Sat, 18 Dec 2010 09:15:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (lurza.secnetix.de [IPv6:2a01:170:102f::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ABAF8FC19; Sat, 18 Dec 2010 09:15:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oBI9FSZA090564; Sat, 18 Dec 2010 10:15:43 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id oBI9FSWA090563; Sat, 18 Dec 2010 10:15:28 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from olli) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 10:15:28 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <201012180915.oBI9FSWA090563@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, dougb@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <4D0C49A2.4000203@FreeBSD.org> X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-stable User-Agent: tin/1.8.3-20070201 ("Scotasay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/6.4-PRERELEASE-20080904 (i386)) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.3.5 (lurza.secnetix.de [127.0.0.1]); Sat, 18 Dec 2010 10:15:43 +0100 (CET) Cc: Subject: Re: RFC: Upgrade BIND version in RELENG_7 to BIND 9.6.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, dougb@FreeBSD.ORG List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 09:15:45 -0000 Doug Barton wrote: > In order to avoid repeating the scenario where we have a version of BIND > in the base that is not supported by the vendor I am proposing that we > upgrade to BIND 9.6-ESV in FreeBSD RELENG_7. I agree. > I am particularly interested in feedback from users with significant DNS > usage that are still using 9.4, especially if you're using the version > in the base. I would appreciate it if you could install 9.6 from the > ports and at minimum run /usr/local/sbin/named-checkconf to see if any > errors are generated. Of course it would be that much more helpful if > you could also evaluate BIND 9.6 in operation in your environment. I already installed the ports' version of BIND 9.6 a few months ago on two stable/7 machines that are primary and secondary nameservers for a bunch of domains. It was a simple drop-in replacement, no problems whatsoever. > Your feedback on the issue of upgrading BIND in RELENG_7 is welcome. > Sooner is better. :) I vote for the upgrade. It's easy and seamless for users, as far as I can tell, and it avoids problems in the long run. I agree with you that the situation that we had with FreeBSD 6 should be avoided. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd C++: "an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog" -- Steve Taylor, 1998