Re: Mass ipv6 lookups
I don't disagree that IPv6 is here to stay. I don't have any problems
with it per se. My problem is that at this time this should be a
configuration option, not a 'shove it down the throat and deal with it'.
As many have said, IPv6 is not really big yet. So my question remains,
why de-optimize (can't think of a better word) my DNS servers. We've gone
to linux to save maintenance on some systems but now I have to build/buy
new DNS servers and increase my maintenance. Backfired I guess.
Ramon Kagan
York University, Computing and Network Services
Unix Team - Intermediate System Administrator
(416)736-2100 #20263
rkagan@yorku.ca
-------------------------------------
I have not failed. I have just
found 10,000 ways that don't work.
- Thomas Edison
-------------------------------------
On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 27, Ramon Kagan <rkagan@YorkU.CA> wrote:
>
> >I've compiled my kernels (40+ systems) without IPv6 support and I have no
> >desire for IPv6 in any format at this time. However, I see that I am
> >transmitting IPv6 DNS queries, in IPv4 packets. Two things:
> If you want help please provide a queries trace.
> The best way to do this is to install a name server on one of your hosts
> and add something like this to named.conf:
>
> logging {
> channel query_logging { file "/tmp/query.log"; print-time yes; };
> category queries { query_logging; };
> };
>
> Then find which process is doing these queries.
> I just checked and it's not a tcpd problem, when I connect to a wrapped
> port then only queries I see are:
>
> 27-Sep-2002 17:33:59.352 XX+/127.0.0.1/9.0.0.10.in-addr.arpa/PTR/IN
> 27-Sep-2002 17:33:59.352 XX+/127.0.0.1/wonderland.sv.bofh.it/A/IN
>
>
> Anyway, as other people already explained, IPv6 is here and is not
> going away, so unless you can find a real bug you will have to live with
> this.
>
> --
> ciao,
> Marco
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ipv6-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
Reply to: