From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter =?utf-8?q?M=C3=BCller?= To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: unbound 1.15.0 - problems with certain DoT(?) configurations Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2022 20:47:41 +0000 Message-ID: <73a40462-7169-1828-2f84-d08739bdad1d@ipfire.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1399118489893779415==" List-Id: --===============1399118489893779415== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Matthias, hello Michael, looking at https://lists.nlnetlabs.nl/pipermail/unbound-users/2022-February/0= 07671.html, it appears as if the commit in question never made it into the final release = of Unbound 1.15.0, so the issue should not appear with the productive version. Unless I overlooked something, I would consider Unbound 1.15.0 to be ready fo= r prime time. :-) Thanks, and best regards, Peter M=C3=BCller > Hello Matthias, >=20 > Yes, we should definitely wait before we introduce a known regression. >=20 > I do not see anything on the change log that would be *that* interesting fo= r us that it would be worth it to break DoT. >=20 > Hopefully a patch will be available soon. >=20 > -Michael >=20 >> On 11 Feb 2022, at 08:58, Matthias Fischer = wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> please note - I'm working on 'unbound 1.15.0' which was published >> yesterday, but it seems this version has some problems with DoT(?). >> >> See: >> =3D> >> https://lists.nlnetlabs.nl/pipermail/unbound-users/2022-February/007669.ht= ml >> >> "It looks like with certain (dot?) configuration, 53/tcp becomes defunct >> on this version of unbound". >> >> I'm testing - no problems so far - under MY environment (see attached >> screenshot). >> >> Should we still wait? >> >> =3D> Opinions!? >> >> Best, >> Matthias >=20 --===============1399118489893779415==--