North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: djbdns: An alternative to BIND

  • From: Dean Anderson
  • Date: Mon Apr 11 17:07:25 2005

On 11 Apr 2005, Paul Vixie wrote:

> i can see from the tailings that a lot of you are not only reading dv8's
> posts, but replying to them.  i'm trying to sort out the part of the
> result that's meaningful in spite of that poison.

Wow. Schoolyard namecalling. You, know. I'm reminded a lot of Michael
Jackson here.  Acting like a 12 year-old is damn strange for someone in
their mid-40's.

> > This is proprietary protocol but as long as its used only when their
> > products are talking to each other, there is nothing substantially
> > wrong. Well ok, what maybe wrong is that they still call it AXFR instead
> > of clearly calling it something like AXFR-BIND9.
> let's lay this to rest, shall we?  the people who implemented BIND9 read the
> spec (RFC 1035) and pronounced it "toe-may-toe", whereas the person who
> implemented "tinydns" read the same spec and pronounced it "toe-mah-toe".

Uh, no. Everyone: Bind 4 thru 8, tinydns, powerdns, microsoft, etc, etc
read it exactly the same way.  Then BIND9 came along and thought (wrongly)
that it needed to change AXFR in order to get IXFR to work.

> the BIND9 interpretation is more strict, and therefore runs afoul of the
> internet philosophy to "be liberal in what you accept".  

Balderdash. "very strict". Boy's, that's spin.

> however, since BIND9 is compatible with BIND8 and BIND4, and with
> microsoft's DNS, and with virtually every other DNS in the world except
> for "tinydns", 

Err, "compatible" because it detects them and then does the right thing, 
and uses the traditional protocol.

Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000