[79596] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: djbdns: An alternative to BIND
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Vixie)
Mon Apr 11 17:39:01 2005
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com>
Date: 11 Apr 2005 21:38:35 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20050411212629.C88341861@testbed9.merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
if we still had moderation, i feel sure that i'd've been kicked off the
list by now for my attention to needless detail in this hairy thread.
"hit D now"
> So, I guess I'm wondering.... how is what BIND9 does substantially
> different than the case I've outlined above?
the modem vendors you were referring to believed that they were extending
the existing mo/dem specification. authors of BIND9 and tinydns each believe
that they are implementing what's written in RFC 1035. so, different.
--
Paul Vixie
