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