Mailing List Archived Message #112

From: "Paul Smedley" <> Full Headers
Undecoded message
Subject: Re: [eCS-ISP] [BULK] [eCS-ISP] Bind 9.11.20
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 09:48:41 +0930
To: eCS ISP Mailing List <>

Hi Dan,

Sorry for confusing you relating to IPV6..

The ipv6 support I'm referring to relates to code that allows the daemon to listen/bind to an ipv6 address. Clearly this cannot work on OS/2 as our tcpip stack is only ipv4.

Nothing prevents the daemon on OS/2 returning an ipv6 address - although of course any ipv6 clients need to be requesting those addresses from an ipv4 daemon, so you couldn't use it in a pure ipv6 environment.

Hope this makes sense..



On 15/7/20 9:18 am, Dan Napier wrote:

I just installed the 9.11  Porsche  it does report ipv6 even in the OS2 command line The server is reporting ipv6 addresses, so I guess if the system is able to do with it it runs.  So far I have not seen any 100 CPU usage.  I will keep a close watch.  Thanks for all your effort.


*From:*eCS ISP Mailing List []
*Sent:* Monday, July 13, 2020 3:02 PM
*To:* eCS ISP Mailing List <>
*Subject:* Re: [eCS-ISP] [BULK] [eCS-ISP] Bind 9.11.20

Hi Dan and Lewis,

In addition to Lewis's comments - as I recall - newer bind versions don't provide the options of disabling ipv6 support - so we need to provide enough stubs of ipv6 headers to let it compile and work.

I did this for openvpn (which similarly doesn't give an option to disable ipv6) - but ironically, it was this added header support that was causing the 100% cpu usage with Bind 9.11.x.

For the above reasons, I focussed on maintaining 9.11.x as this is EOL December 2021 - which gives us plenty of time to come up with a solution for the next ESV version.



On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 02:05, Lewis G Rosenthal < <>> wrote:

    Hi, Dan...

    On 07/13/20 12:01 pm, Dan Napier wrote:
     > Hello Friends
     > Did I miss something, I seem to be way ahead of the curve.     Running 9.12.4   I am not a Math Major, so I might be wrong, but
    isn’t 9.11.20 a lower rev?
     > 9.12.4 seems to run dandy, reports ip4 and ip6 addresses, does
    not hog cpu.  Did I do something wrong?

    As you will note here:

    9.11 is an ESV (Extended Service Release). 9.11.20 is indeed newer
    than 9.12.4.

    BIND 9.12.4 was a maintenance release, specifically to address issues
    disclosed in CVE-2018-5744, CVE-2018-5745, and CVE-2019-6465.

    9.11.20, OTOH, addresses all security issues up through CVE-2020-8619:

    Not every higher version number necessarily denotes a *newer* or
    more secure
    one. 9.12 was a development branch; 9.11 is a stable one.

    9.16 is current, and will eventually become an ESV (I believe), so
    at some
    point, that should become our target.

    GL HTH

    --     Lewis
    Lewis G Rosenthal, CNA, CLP, CLE, CWTS, EA
    Rosenthal & Rosenthal, LLC
    visit my IT blog

    This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
       the mailing list <
    To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <
    To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to
    < <>>
    To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to
    < <>>
    Send administrative queries to  <
    To subscribe (new addresses), E-mail to: <
    <>> and reply to the confirmation
    Web archives are publicly available at:

    This list is hosted by Rosenthal & Rosenthal, LLC
    P.O. Box 281, Deer Park, NY 11729-0281. Non-
    electronic communications related to content
    contained in these messages should be directed
    to the above address. (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003)


-- Cheers,


-- This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway.

This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway.

Subscribe: Feed, Digest, Index.
Mail to ListMaster