Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded

Sat Feb 3 23:12:29 UTC 2001

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu]On Behalf Of
> jamie rishaw
> Sent: February 3, 2001 5:36 PM
> To: Patrick Greenwell
> Cc: Paul A Vixie; nanog at merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 02:14:12PM -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> >
> > I count 141 ICANN "fully: accrediated domain name registrars, with an
> > unknown number of secondary registrars due to systems like OpenSRS.
> >
> > These organizations collectively handle second-level name resolution for
> > the overwhelming majority of the millions of .com, .net, and
> .org domains
> > in use on the Internet. And while I haven't done a survey, I'd surmise
> > that they overwhelmingly use BIND.
> >
> > Will these 141 organizations many of whose business relies on BIND be
> > eligible for your fee-based list? Do they consitute providers
> of "critical
> > infrastructure" in your eyes?
> >
>
> They're registrars.  The don't directly provide DNS in any more critical
> a nature than any commercial DNS provider.
>
> And, since they're commercial organizations using BIND in a commercial
> aspect, I think they can cough up the money.

Disclaimer: I'm not a registrar myself, but I thought that GTLD registrars
sent everything to the NSI registry, and NSI still maintained the actual
zone files on the GTLD servers.

If this is correct, I would argue that they don't provide DNS in any way
(except to their internal machines); certainly, they're not part of critical
infrastructure (whereas *.gtld-servers.net, the contents of which they
contribute to, certainly are).

Therefore, they'd have less need to know about BIND security bugs than a
commercial DNS provider, or a non-profit DNS provider like us.

Vivien
--
Vivien M.
vivienm at dyndns.org
Assistant System Administrator
Dynamic DNS Network Services
http://www.dyndns.org/