NS record question

[Roy Arends]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Bob Vance wrote:

> >I agree. Nothing to add.
> 
> Maybe so.
> But I agree with Doug.
>
> One of the first reasons I didn't go with BIND9 was that $GENERATE wasn't
> supported (or so I was led to believe).  Give me a break.  

Don't believe everything you hear. $GENERATE has been supported from the
first 9.1.0 beta. 

> I don't want to go backwards when upgrading.  I thought, "What else is
> missing?  I don't have to time to investigate it and make
> work-arounds."

Amazing, you did not test it. I'm sorry, but how can you agree with Doug
on this, without having hands-on experience with BIND 9. Now I understand
his point of view, not that I agree with his view.

> Now, I *have* gone to rc7 on my home Linux box, but am confronted with some
> DDNS and nsupdate issues that I must take time to investigate and iron out.

Thats very good. If you have any obstacles, don't throw it out of the
window, but just ask. Some "none-backwardness" was done for a reason.

> That's OK at home, and I'm doing it just to see what will be
> encountered in prep for the final move, but I cannot imagine going to
> 9 in a large production environment right now. Of course, I hope that
> everyone doing so has a good experience.

BTW, I did not encourage anyone to drop BIND 8 like a hot potato, but just
wanted people to realise... no wait, let me just quote myself:
   
  "I hope everyone realises that the development of BIND 8 is dead. No new
  features, No new RR records (No A6/DNAME for instance), No full DNSSEC
  implementation. The only thing that's done for BIND 8 is an occasional
  bug fix. To keep up and running with new DNS features, as in DNSSEC/IPv6
  and all that jazz, I suggest people to move to BIND-9."

As I said, if you want new features, bind-9. If you want continue
operating with what works for you, and you don't need new features: "if it
ain't broke, don't fix it".

Regards,

Roy Arends
Nominum