[79585] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: djbdns: An alternative to BIND
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Mon Apr 11 15:14:36 2005
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0504110648290.2151@sokol.elan.net>
Cc: Vicky Rode <vickyr@socal.rr.com>, nanog@merit.edu
From: David Conrad <david.conrad@nominum.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:14:10 -0700
To: "william(at)elan.net" <william@elan.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
William,
On Apr 11, 2005, at 6:58 AM, william(at)elan.net wrote:
> Surely, you aren't saying that is somethig wrong with that or that they
> are making non-compliant product
As far as I know, BINDv9 complies with the AXFR protocol. Empirically,
given BINDv9 interoperates with every DNS server that implements AXFR
and IXFR that I'm aware of, it would seem assertions that "BIND9 is not
compliant with AXFR standards" is simply pure crap. There was an
attempt to clarify various ambiguities found in the rather loose
specification of the AXFR protocol by writing up the issues encountered
and a solution to those issues, but that effort sunk in the IETF swamp.
> 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)?
The only proprietary (in the sense that it was not specified by any
standards group, not in the sense of protected intellectual property)
protocol I'm aware of in BINDv9 is the "command channel" protocol used
in rndc.
However, I don't speak authoritatively (pun intended) on BIND.
Rgds,
-drc
