Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!rice!sun-spots-request From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun Subject: Re: Problem with interfacing YP and BIND Message-ID: Date: 27 Jan 89 03:28:43 GMT References: <211@sirius.ua.oz> Sender: usenet@rice.edu Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 27 Approved: Sun-Spots@rice.edu Original-Date: 20 Jan 89 07:37:52 GMT X-Sun-Spots-Digest: Volume 7, Issue 124, message 4 of 9 I can't see why you shouldn't be able to use the name server outside the Internet. IP packets that go via the Arpanet aren't a different color. However the name server software is designed to work in an environment that has a hierarchical collection of name servers, starting with the infamous root server. So you can't just set up your local servers the way you would here. You have to set up your own root server. There are problems getting 4.0 to talk to named. But they have been solved, and Sun should be able to give you the package b. as to your second question, we have 4.0_Export source. (There is no domestic source, apparently.) As far as I can see, most of the differences between 4.0 and 4.0_Export are in libc. (1) They aren't going to affect anything relevant to named and (2) I'll bet the named update package on uunet has the domestic version of named. I understand that Sun made a real effort at getting rid of the lobotomization for 4.0, and came close to getting it done. That's a good sign I think. I've always thought that they should just move their software operation to Australia, since as far as I know there's no problem getting this stuff into the U.S., just out. I note that MKS in Canada is now shipping clones of the Unix crypt for MS/DOS, and maybe also for System V running on PC's. With the increasing importance of secure communications, the U.S. government is coming under increasing pressure on this issue. Many Unix vendors are doing half their business outside the U.S. They are not going to be able to compete with non-U.S. vendors if they have to remove all their security technology outside the U.S. I think you're going to see movement on this issue in the future.