zone transfers sticking on one port?
Barry Margolin
barmar at alum.mit.edu
Tue Mar 16 22:26:40 UTC 2004
In article <c37sah$j8$1 at sf1.isc.org>,
Chris Fabri <fabric at northwestern.edu> wrote:
> Yup, although if for some reason that port got blocked, you'd be
> hosed. But I was sorta hosed anyway. Hence my question about what was
> the initial goal of having it choose a random port in the first
> place. Would I be better off just using a source port of 53, since
> (almost) nobody would be brain-dead enough to block that off? chris
The idea was that named should act like a normal UDP client when it's
sending out queries. BIND 4 used source port 53, but this was a problem
if the site had a firewall blocking inbound port 53 (because they didn't
want to allow queries from outside their network).
--
Barry Margolin, barmar at alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
More information about the bind-users
mailing list