forwarding algorithm and timeouts
kcd at daimlerchrysler.com
Wed Mar 28 00:03:25 UTC 2001
Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 2:55 PM -0500 3/27/01, Kevin Darcy wrote:
> > Well, this is just a matter of semantics, but when a nameserver program (like
> > "named") forwards, it is acting in the *role* of a "resolver" (i.e. a
> > DNS client). It is therefore quite reasonable, in my opinion, to compare and
> > contrast, as Bob is doing, the respective timeout/retry strategies for
> > "forwarding" versus stub resolvers.
> These are technical terms, and the correct one should be used to
> describe the behaviour in question.
Well, *technically* the term "resolver" covers any software program or component
which acts as a client to extract DNS information. The components of "named" which
answer queries directly from cache or authoritative data are
"nameserver" components; the component of "named" which queries other nameservers,
is a "resolver" component. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that when named is
forwarding in "forward only" mode, it is effectively functioning as a "stub"
resolver, since it's using no iteration-and-referral logic and (therefore) the
servers it uses recursively are predefined in its configuration. The only
difference is that, unlike most stub resolvers, "named"s resolver component will
> > This just sounds wrong. What about forwarder failover or the RTT-based
> > forwarder-selection in BIND 8.2.3? Perhaps you are using terms like
> > "contact" in a way that is unfamiliar to me.
> This is what was recently confirmed to me by Jim. Now, maybe I
> misunderstood what he was saying, but this is my understanding.
I suspect a miscommunication of some sort.
More information about the bind-users