BIND 8.2.3 verus 9.x.x ?? in production

Nate Duehr nate at
Thu Mar 22 10:02:11 UTC 2001

On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 08:43:39PM +0000, Jim Reid wrote:
> >>>>> "Brad" == Brad Knowles <brad.knowles at> writes:
>     >> I agree with Kevin, but it has more to do with the 41,000
>     >> queries one of my servers took in 40 seconds last weekend than
>     >> anything.  :-)
> Broken desktops can be a real problem, eh? :-)
>     Brad> 	Ahh, but that's only a thousand queries a second.  I
>     Brad> had machines back in 1996 that could do that many.  ;-)
> Query rates of 1000+ per second are well up towards root name server
> levels. They shouldn't be seen in regular, well-behaved environments -
> even at huge ISPs.

Let's just say I have a customer with a penchant for reverse lookups he
doesn't need... and leave it at that.  14 web servers doing 40+ Mbs of
traffic can create a lot of lookups!  The application is
horribly misconfigured, but who am I to explain that to him when "his
last ISP handled it just fine"?  :-)  Gotta love it.

>     >> I also think calling it BIND 9 is a misnomer.  It's NIND
>     >> 1.1.1rc5, not BIND 9.1.1rc5.  (NIND = Nominum Internet Name
>     >> Daemon -- Berkeley's not really all that involved anymore, are
>     >> they?)
>     Brad> 	No, this is not at all correct.  BIND is an ISC
>     Brad> product, and Nominum's involvement is as the company that
>     Brad> has been contracted to write the code.  Therefore, this is
>     Brad> very much still BINDv9, since this is still an ISC project.
> Indeed. That's why all the BIND9 code has the ISC copyright: it's the
> ISC's intellectual property, not Nominum's. Anything we do that we own
> carries a Nominum copyright.

Well, the NIND was just a thought.  Obviously an incorrect one.  I like
your explanation below better than my rant.  :-)

> However the original poster is strictly correct to say the code
> shouldn't be called BIND any more. But it should have been renamed 5-6
> years ago. UC Berkeley's direct involvement with BIND stopped around
> the time the CSRG wound up in 1995. I think that Vixie Enterprises had
> taken over the maintenance of BIND by that time: maybe sooner or a
> little later. Shortly after that the ISC was born and "ownership" of
> BIND was transferred to that not-for-profit institution. The code
> retained UCB's copyright - a good model for open source IMHO - and
> then inherited a bunch of other open source copyrights as a cast of
> thousands contributed code.

Nate Duehr <nate at>

GPG Key fingerprint = DCAF 2B9D CC9B 96FA 7A6D AAF4 2D61 77C5 7ECE C1D2
Public Key available upon request, or at and others.

More information about the bind-users mailing list