Subject: Re: delay needed after started named?
To: Wolfgang S. Rupprecht <>
From: Steven M. Bellovin <>
List: netbsd-users
Date: 05/04/2004 16:24:03
In message <>, "Wolfgang S. Rupprecht
" writes:
>> Hmm -- that's a thought, though it will make disconnected boots even 
>> slower than they are today.
>Before my portable walked out my back door I used dhcpd as a
>on-network detector.  If the main interface didn't look like it had a
>valid address I bypassed the startup for all sorts of daemons.  The
>assumption was that I was most likely also on battery and didn't need
>to waste all that electricity on things that didn't matter.

I've tried things like that in the past, though rarely with 
satisfactory results.  I should revisit it, since I tend to do a lot of 
^Cs at such times...
>> Btw, I don't see a -W option to host on 2.0beta or -current.
>Oh.  I think this is a bind9-ism.  My /usr/pkg/man is upstream of the
>normal one.  Probably the default timeouts for the older 'host(1)' are
>good enough.
>(I figured you must be running bind9 since it has the startup problem
>in spades, as did bind-8.)
I am running bind9 -- I managed to check /usr/pkg/bin on the wrong 
machine...  Tnx.

		--Steve Bellovin,