Maintained by: NLnet Labs

L-Root IPv6 address renumbering

Dave Warren
Thu Mar 17 05:55:48 CET 2016


On 2016-03-16 14:06, Robert Edmonds via Unbound-users wrote:
> Dave Warren via Unbound-users wrote:
>> On 2016-03-16 10:46, Robert Edmonds via Unbound-users wrote:
>>> Not quite, I want to avoid two things:
>>>
>>> 1) The sysadmin should never have to update the root hints by hand.
>>> "apt update && apt upgrade" should upgrade any packages needed to bring
>>> the root hints up to date.
>>>
>>> 2) The package maintainers shouldn't have to patch and rebuild each
>>> package with compiled in root hints when a root server is renumbered.
>> At what point would a binary have a newer internal roots hints than the
>> filesystem root.hints file when a user is using #1 to keep updated? Is there
>> a subset of users who would update the binary but not apt update/upgrade?
> This is a good point, it doesn't really matter for the distro user, I
> guess.

I may be wrong, but for those who take the time and effort to build 
their own Unbound, I see them either using a root.hints file because 
they know what they're doing, or not because they've never heard of it 
(or because they know what they're doing)

I'm sure there's some small group that will create one and abandon it, 
but I just can't imagine that this type would remember to manually 
update the binary.


> I agree, the consequences are extremely mild in the first place. We 
> still go to the trouble of backporting the root hint updates, though. 

I agree that it's worth doing, but the keep-it-simple of just reading 
the configured file or not seems like it's more valuable than guessing 
at whether the file should be used or ignored. Also, the principle of 
least surprise, a user will expect that the file will be used or not.



-- 
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren