djbdns: An alternative to BIND

Tue Apr 12 21:05:30 UTC 2005

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:

> 
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 04:53:26PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> > "Empirically" is because BIND9 attempts to detect other BIND9 servers, and
> > if it thinks the other server isn't BIND9, then it uses the traditional
> > protocol. So it will work so long as no implementation can fool BIND9 into 
> > thinking the other server is BIND9, but then not implement the 
> > non-standard protocol.
> 
> Well, not to put too fine a point on it, Dean, why in he|| would you
> want to *do* something that silly?  Since the only identifiable reason
> to pretend to be BIND9 *is to get that protocol modification*, if you
> can't do that protocol, and you claim to be BIND9 anyway, you seem to
> deserve what you get.

Because, for the dullards, if one changes the RFC, then BIND9 can remove
the detection code and still be RFC compliant. Removing the detection code
would mean that non-BIND9 implementations wouldn't work anymore with
BIND9.  And BIND9 then gets to say that the other implementaions failed
because they are non-compliant.  A classic microsoft-like "fuck the
competition" maneuver.

Was that not obvious?

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   