Root server cannot be a forwarder?
xiaoxia2005a at yahoo.com
Sat Oct 21 03:32:08 UTC 2006
Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <ehbkg4$1g42$1 at sf1.isc.org>,
> Kevin Darcy <kcd at daimlerchrysler.com> wrote:
> > Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 04:43:55AM -0700,
> > > April <xiaoxia2005a at yahoo.com> wrote
> > > a message of 18 lines which said:
> > >
> > >
> > >> I'm not talking about the Roots for the Internet, but a namespace in
> > >> general.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I do not recognize DNS vocabulary and ontology. On a BIND mailing
> > > list, using the DNS terminology seems a good start :-)
> > >
> > I don't see any problem with the terminology: a root server is a server
> > that answers authoritatively when queried for the root zone. Whether the
> > client or the server happens to be on the Internet shouldn't have any
> > bearing on the terminology used, it's only the context of the transaction.
> But that's not what people were referring to by "root server" in this
> thread, either. They're using the term "root server" to mean "server
> for the root of my domain". In other words, on the Acme Corporation
> network, the server that hosts acme.com is their "root server".
> I think people really need to learn to be less pedantic. When context
> makes the meaning clear, we can survive sloppy terminology and
> ambiguity. The fact that someone asks a question like the one in the OP
> indicates that they don't have much expertise in this area, so do you
> really expect them to be fully familiar with our terminology? We're
> smart people, we can figure out what they mean even if they don't use
> the exactly correct words.
> Barry Margolin, barmar at alum.mit.edu
> Arlington, MA
> *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
> *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Just found something you posted today I think,
"> Referring who to the parent nameservers? Clients almost always have
> "stub resolvers", which do not implement iteration by themselves. They
> send queries with the Recursion Desired flag set, and depend on the
> server to perform recursion to look up remote names.
where is this "remote names" coming from? Is this a DNS terminology?
That is called something like "names the server is not authoritative or
cached" if you want to speak DNS, right? ;-)
More information about the bind-users