nanog mailing list archives
RE: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer () mhsc com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 01:59:34 -0800
From: Joshua Goodall [mailto:joshua () roughtrade net] Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 12:52 AM
I can understand the annoyance felt by a large hosting provider updating BIND in an emergency and finding more than just a security fix. Pim is, I guess, concerned that similar updates in future may have longer MTTR impact. Pete Elke's point about preproduction testing could perhaps be turned from a combative tone to the constructive without loss of information.
Isn't that why NSI is running a stealth master root server ... so they _are able_ to do pre-production testing of zone files? In the past few years, there were a lot of root server outages that would have been prevented by that practice.
Current thread:
- Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Sean Donelan (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Eric A. Hall (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Joshua Goodall (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Pim van Riezen (Feb 24)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Roeland Meyer (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] RE: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Pim van Riezen (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Sean Donelan (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Eric A. Hall (Feb 24)