North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: djbdns: An alternative to BIND
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Dean Anderson wrote: Surely, you aren't saying that is somethig wrong with that or that theyBut what pushed me was that BIND9 is not compliant with AXFR standards. There is more to the story than can be explained shortly. However, Vixie and crew tried to ramrod a change to AXFR a while ago to make BIND9 compliant. And asking _every_ other implemenation to change in the process. That effort failed. So far as I know, ISC has not made any effort to either tell people that BIND9 isn't compliant, nor alter BIND9 to be compliant. At present, BIND9 attempts to detect whether it is transferring from another BIND9 server to determine with to use the standard protocol or to use the non-standard BIND9 protocol. are making non-compliant product just because they choose to use different "proprietary" protocol when two of their products interact with each other (while still supporting standard protocols for other systems)? Otherwise if we do use your rationale tha product is bad when it does it, then all my cisco equipment would be considered bad! Its not a real big problem, though the BIND9 detection might be dicey. An implmentation that pretends to be BIND (but not using the proprietary Nobody should be producing product that "pretends" to be something else, that itself would be a problem and may even be illegal if BIND name is trademarked (and even if its not if somebody makes different product that is using bind name and that product does not work or works differently, it creates dillusion and bad reputation for makers of bind and so its something ISC could legally demand to be stopped). -- William Leibzon Elan Networks [email protected]
|