Upgrade RH 6.2/Bind 8.2.3 to RH 7.3/Bind 9.2.0

Kevin Darcy kcd at daimlerchrysler.com
Wed May 15 01:33:24 UTC 2002


Me wrote:

> Thanks. I looked at it today and even after stripping everything out that I
> thought I could, I was still about 50 MB short on disk space, so I guess
> it's time to look at some newer old computers. : ) I'm now thinking about
> simply starting from scratch instead of upgrading. Tomorrow I'm going to try
> deselecting absolutely every package except BIND and then let it resolve the
> missing dependencies and see how small that will make the install. Can I
> assume that my existing named.conf and zone records can simply be copied to
> the new system without major modifications?

See doc/misc/migration in the BIND 9 distribution.

> > e.g., bind8 can be configured to allow multiple cname's on a label but
> > bind9 doesn't allow it at all and there is nothing you can do
>
> What do you mean by "label"? Multiple CNAMEs for one A record? Hope not,
> because that is precisely what I do have.

No, other way around. It's quite legal and common to have multiple CNAMEs point
at the same name. What's illegal is to have multiple CNAME records with the
*same*name*, pointing to different targets. BIND 8 allowed this, but BIND 9
doesn't. Apparently some folks were relying on these illegal "multiple
CNAMEs" to implement some screwy form of load-balancing and/or failover.
They're the ones that are getting, um, _inconvenienced_ by the BIND 8->BIND 9
migration. So sad, too bad. Since it was illegal, it never could have worked
reliably anyway.


- Kevin

> Ray
>
>  "those who know me have no need of my name" <not-a-real-address at usa.net>
> wrote in message news:abncpb$fbvp$1 at isrv4.isc.org...
> >
> > <abn4hp$f94p$1 at isrv4.isc.org> divulged:
> >
> > >Just saw that the newest release of Red hat, v7.3, includes Bind 9.2.0.
> I've
> > >got several old Pentium 75 computers with 400 MB hard drives running Bind
> > >8.2.3 that I would like to upgrade. These servers don't do anything
> except
> > >act as authoritative non-recursive nameservers for a handful of domains.
> > >From the docs it looks like I just select Upgrade and the RH installer
> > >upgrades only the installed packages.
> >
> > this part works as expected.  but, bind9 is different than bind8.  whether
> > there are any differences which will affect you depends on what you
> expect,
> > e.g., bind8 can be configured to allow multiple cname's on a label but
> > bind9 doesn't allow it at all and there is nothing you can do (short of
> > hacking the code) to allow it.
> >
> > i'd suggest that you copy your configuration to a test system, then
> upgrade
> > it and check the log files for problems -- most likely there will be none.
> >
> > --
> > bringing you boring signatures for 17 years
> >
> >



More information about the bind-users mailing list