bicknell at ufp.org
Tue Nov 2 13:33:45 CDT 2010
In a message written on Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 06:21:14PM +0000, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
> the way bind handles things.. isn't really suitable for bigger ipv4 and it
> definately isn't suitable for ANY ipv6 network, and the whole thing with
> files being transferred.. well.. ahem... "primitive".
> bind was coded in a time when the internet ran on 64kbit links.. caching
> downstream back then was desired and things weren't so "large", and it
> really didn't matter much if things took hours.
> (why do we STILL have to wait for new domains... just drop the whole
> concept of -files- and -zones- domain registrations should work
> -instantly-! not after a "reload" of something that should not be used
> anymore anyway).
I'll note that most of the behavior you describe here is deeply
rooted in the RFC's. The concepts of zone transfers for instance
are not unique to BIND, but rather in the definition of how
interoperable DNS is supposed to work.
That said, there is clearly room for improvement, and in fact there
are a lot of folks working on it. Indeed, some of them have funding
BIND 10, a ground-up rewrite of BIND that I think based on the tone
of your message may please you with the direction that it is going.
For more information...
Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 826 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the NANOG