****** Debian Bug report logs - #486497
seemingly arbitrary restriction not to bind to 0.0.0.0 ******

Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:06:09 UTC
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: seemingly arbitrary restriction not to bind to 0.0.0.0
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:53:42 +0200

"You can not have both csv2 zone files and have MaraDNS bind to 0.0.0.0"

I see no reason why I should not be able to do this, or what 0.0.0.0
would have to do with csv2.

MaraDNS says "MaraDNS now supports binding to multiple IPs; please
use this feature." - sure, but I can't since I am on a dynamic IP.


From: Sam Trenholme <strenholme.usenet@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: seemingly arbitrary restriction not to bind to 0.0.0.0
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 01:51:15 -0700
Upstream here.  It's a really bad idea to bind MaraDNS to 0.0.0.0, but
if you insist on doing it, it can be done if csv2_synthip_list is set.

- Sam


Message_#15 received at 486497@bugs.debian.org (full_text, mbox):
From: martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org>
Subject: Re: seemingly arbitrary restriction not to bind to 0.0.0.0
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:03:04 +0200
also sprach Sam Trenholme <strenholme.usenet@gmail.com> [2010.07.23.1051
+0200]:
> Upstream here.  It's a really bad idea to bind MaraDNS to 0.0.0.0, but
> if you insist on doing it, it can be done if csv2_synthip_list is set.

It might be a bad idea in most cases, but sometimes it just makes
sense. Thanks.


From: Sam Trenholme <strenholme.usenet@gmail.com>
To: 486497@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: seemingly arbitrary restriction not to bind to 0.0.0.0
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:54:49 -0700
The reason why setting things up to allow binding to 0.0.0.0 is an
undocumented feature and why I strongly encourage people to not do it
is because I have had reports of occasional buggy behavior caused by
0.0.0.0 binding.

It's a case of a "doing this voids the warranty"; I'm not responsible
for any resulting buggy behavior caused by binding to "0.0.0.0".

- Sam

