From owner-freebsd-questions Sun Oct 31 10:14: 3 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D973F14E72 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 10:13:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rfg@monkeys.com) Received: from segfault.monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA09424; Sun, 31 Oct 1999 10:11:55 -0800 (PST) To: Kevin Street , Tom Embt , Alex Derevyanko Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BIND (8.1.2) reverse mapping for RFC 1918 addresses? - Please Help In-reply-to: Your message of 31 Oct 1999 10:06:16 -0500. <8766zna7tj.fsf@mired.eh.local> From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 10:11:55 -0800 Message-ID: <9422.941393515@segfault.monkeys.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Regarding my questions about named setup... NEVERMIND! Something that Kevin Street said made it all click, and I finally realized my incredibly stupid error. (I _was_ correct that something very fundamental was screwed up.) Here's the deal... I am/was accustomed to running named (8.2.x) AS DISTRIBUTED BY ISC.ORG. When using a straight-out-of-the-box named from ISC, the configuration file is in /etc/named.conf, and I had no idea that named could ever, or would ever be built in such a way as to make the default path for the configuration file be someplace else. Boy was I wrong! The named (8.1.2) binary that is being distributed with FreeBSD 3.3 has apparently been built so as to assume the default path to the configuration file is /etc/namedb/named.conf. I didn't know that. So of course, I was fiddling /etc/named.conf and making all of these local changes and setting up all sorts of elaborate stuff, and what do you know! None of it was ever even taking effect! Now that I know what the problem was (and now that I have made the file named /etc/namedb/named.conf just be a symlink to /etc/named.conf) things are working 100% better. My thanks to everyone who sent me responses. P.S. More questions: (1) Why was FreeBSD 3.3 distributed with what would seem to be such an out-of-date named? (2) Why was the named binary that is being distributed with FreeBSD 3.3 built to use a different default path for the configuration file from the one that (it seems) ISC recommends? Does this fall into the category of `annoyingly pointless incompatibilities'? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message