|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical classless delegation [was: Re: IP address fee??]
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 09:10:45AM -0400, [email protected] wrote: > On Fri, 06 Sep 2002 14:42:39 +0200, Peter van Dijk <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> said: > > > > [email protected] (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 -- [email protected] | http://www.dataloss.nl/ | Undernet:#clue
|