On 15 Jul 2003, dave wrote:

> does SUN's BIND still use old format or it has adopted new format? on the
> solaris 9 it is using BIND 8.2.4 ...

Assuming you're talking about the config file, Sun is using
BIND 8.x, so that's the format you need to use (i.e., the
new one).

--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:43:10 +0000, Rich Teer wrote:

> On 15 Jul 2003, dave wrote:
>
>> does SUN's BIND still use old format or it has adopted new format? on the
>> solaris 9 it is using BIND 8.2.4 ...
>
> Assuming you're talking about the config file, Sun is using
> BIND 8.x, so that's the format you need to use (i.e., the
> new one).

The "new" one is the named.conf for BIND-9 which is somewhat different
than that required for BIND-8.2. The zone files remain unchanged between
BIND-8.2 and BIND-9.

In article <pan.2003.07.16.15.37.42.915346@yahoo.com>,
Dave Uhring <daveuhring@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 14:46:48 +0000, Barry Margolin wrote:
>
>> No, the format of the config file changed between BIND 4 and and BIND 8.
>> BIND 4 used named.boot, whose syntax was one directive per line:
>
>That's going somewhat far back in time ;-) Not even OpenBSD still uses
>BIND-4 - too many root holes.

I know, but that's the last time there was a major change in configuration
file format. Everything since then has just been changes in commands, not
format.

>> BIND 8 and 9 both use named.conf, whose syntax is sort-of C-like, with
>> semicolons separating directives and curly-braces for grouping.
>>
>> There were some changes in some of the individual directives and options
>> between 8 and 9, but not a drastic change in file format. Most BIND 8
>> config files are likely to work in BIND 9, and the ones that don't should
>> only require minor changes.
>
>BIND-8.1 -> BIND-8.2 required the addition of a ttl declaration at the top
>of the zone files.

But it still supported the old format for backward compatibility.

>BIND-8.2 -> BIND-9 required the addition of the rndc key stuff to
>named.conf along with /etc/rndc.conf. The zone files were the same.

Does it really *require* it? I haven't done any BIND 9 configuration
myself, and our servers all have this stuff in their configuration, but I
assumed it has defaults for when it's not supplied.

--
Barry Margolin, barry.margolin@level3.com
Level(3), Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:47:33 +0000, Barry Margolin wrote:

> But it still supported the old format for backward compatibility.

Yes, and with that ttl statement, the same zone files are used in BIND-9.

>>BIND-8.2 -> BIND-9 required the addition of the rndc key stuff to
>>named.conf along with /etc/rndc.conf. The zone files were the same.
>
> Does it really *require* it? I haven't done any BIND 9 configuration
> myself, and our servers all have this stuff in their configuration, but I
> assumed it has defaults for when it's not supplied.

I've been running BIND-9 since it was first released; got tired of chasing
root holes in BIND-8, and Sun released Solaris 8 with BIND-8.2.2p5 with a
known root hole although they 'may' have patched it.

I could not get named to start without the rndc stuff in named.conf. But
it was simple enough to get rndc configured and the proper lines and key
in named.conf.