No subject

>From suter  Fri Nov 30 14:20:05 2001
Return-Path: <majordom at caliburn.humbug.org.au>
Received: from diadora.client.uq.net.au (diadora-2 [10.0.1.2])
	by zwitterion.humbug.org.au (8.12.1/8.12.1/Debian -2) with ESMTP id fAU4K5NT022365
	for <suter at zwitterion.humbug.org.au>; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 14:20:05 +1000
Received: from caliburn (mail at caliburn.humbug.org.au [203.15.51.6])
	by diadora.client.uq.net.au (8.12.1/8.12.1/Debian -2) with ESMTP id fAU4K405010558
	for <suter at zwitterion.humbug.org.au>; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 14:20:04 +1000
Received: from majordom by caliburn with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
	id 169epq-0000UI-00
	for <general-outgoing at lists.humbug.org.au>; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:59:34 +1000
Received: from gw.gbch.net ([203.143.238.93] ident=65e9qr)
	by caliburn with smtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
	id 169epl-0000UC-00
	for <general at lists.humbug.org.au>; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:59:30 +1000
Received: (qmail 56705 invoked by uid 1001); 30 Nov 2001 13:59:28 +1000
X-Posted-By: GJB-Post 2.23 27-Nov-2001
X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.2-RELEASE i386
X-Uptime: 8 days, 20:04
X-Location: Brisbane, Australia; 27.49841S 152.98439E
X-URL: http://www.gbch.net/gjb.html
X-Image-URL: http://www.gbch.net/gjb/gjb-auug048.gif
X-GPG-Fingerprint: EBB2 2A92 A79D 1533 AC00  3C46 5D83 B6FB 4B04 B7D6
X-PGP-Public-Keys: http://www.gbch.net/keys.html
Message-Id: <nospam-1007092768.56666 at bambi.gbch.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:59:28 +1000
From: Greg Black <gjb at gbch.net>
To: general at lists.humbug.org.au
Subject: Re: [H-GEN] caching nameserver 
References: <Pine.OSF.4.30.0111301317200.24481-100000 at fox.uq.net.au> 
In-reply-to: <Pine.OSF.4.30.0111301317200.24481-100000 at fox.uq.net.au> 
	of Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:20:44 +1000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general at lists.humbug.org.au
X-Loop: general at lists.humbug.org.au
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo at lists.humbug.org.au?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:general at lists.humbug.org.au>
List-Subscribe: <mailto: general-request at lists.humbug.org.au?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: semi-serious discussions about Humbug and Unix-related topics <general at lists.humbug.org.au>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto: general-request at lists.humbug.org.au?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://archive.humbug.org.au/humbug-general/>
Sender: Majordomo <majordom at caliburn.humbug.org.au>
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2448
Lines: 56

[ Humbug *General* list - semi-serious discussions about Humbug and  ]
[ Unix-related topics.  Please observe the list's charter.           ]
[ Worthwhile understanding: http://www.humbug.org.au/netiquette.html ]

Raymond Smith wrote:

| On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Greg Black wrote:
| >
| > I, together with many other people, have been using djbdns on
| > various networks for ages and have nothing but praise for it.
| > That's actual experience, not somebody spreading FUD, which is
| > what you appear to be doing with your post.
| >
| > If you have specific issues with djbdns, take them to the djbdns
| > mailing list and let people address your concerns.
| 
| Does djbdns now properly implement zone transfers? When I last looked
| around I had thought this was not the case; perhaps I am confusing it for
| some other system.

When AsiaOnline was my ISP, I used them as my secondary DNS for
my home network.  They used BIND-8.2.3 AFAIR and it never had
the slightest trouble doing zone transfers -- every time I
updated my tinydns server, the new data appeared promptly on the
AsiaOnline server.

I do know that BIND-9 (which I've never seriously deployed) had
trouble doing AXFR from axfrdns -- but that was due to a bug in
the early BIND-9 code which has since been fixed.

I'm not aware of any other interoperability issues.

| As far as BIND 9 goes... I had no troubles with it.I think I last used
| 9.1.3. I did have some very fucking wierd problems with zone transfers but
| I blamed them on the weird routing supplied by my former employer's IS
| people.

You may have been bitten by the bug mentioned above.

I think the implementation of BIND-9 will result in a codebase
that is quite reliable and satisfactory, although it's too early
to say that yet.  Certainly, given the experience with DNS which
they had available, the BIND people managed to work quite a lot
of silly bugs into the early releases -- however, I'm willing to
believe their claims that the new code is better then BIND-8, at
least until the evidence shows otherwise (although I don't plan
to audit the code myself).

Certainly, if I was still a BIND user, I'd be going with BIND-9
now.  But, having switched to djbdns and been perfectly happy
with it, I see no need to jump back.

--
* This is list (humbug) general handled by majordomo at lists.humbug.org.au .
* Postings to this list are only accepted from subscribed addresses of
* lists 'general' or 'general-post'.