Hosting DNS

Jim Reid jim at rfc1035.com
Wed Feb 28 08:49:39 UTC 2001


>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Rose <peter.rose1 at ntlworld.com> writes:

    Peter> Er ...  isn't this a bit of a vote of no-confidence in BIND
    Peter> 9.1, considering Nomimum wrote it :-)

No. But we would say that, wouldn't we? :-) The initial plan was to
use the GNS infrastructure as a showcase for BIND9. But then an even
better server came along, so we decided to use that instead. There's
nothing wrong with BIND9, though its performance isn't yet good enough
for root servers that get thousands of queries a second. For everyone
else it should be just fine. The world would be a much better place if
people used BIND9 instead of BIND[48]. Compare the code quality.

    Peter> I was also curious why your secondary.com is not using BIND
    Peter> - do you guys know something the rest of us don't ?

Yes. The technology in the GNS server is far better, partly because it
doesn't have to carry around the legacy cruft and baroque features in
named.conf. We could tell you more about it, but we'd have to kill
you afterwards. :-) There are patent issues for instance.


More information about the bind-users mailing list