Re: DNS servers
Craig Sanders writes:
> nobody with more than a handful of domains is going to throw everything
> away and convert to a new nameserver program
Five of the top ten domain-hosting companies on the Internet---including
Namezero, the largest---have switched to djbdns (tinydns) to publish
> that they know nothing about...and haven't been able to test
> adequately because it can't (won't!) read their hundreds or
> thousands of existing zone files.
djbdns can simply transfer the zones from BIND. The upgrade instructions
explain this in detail:
You say that you want ``native support'' for BIND's configuration files
and zone files, not just a zone importer. Could you please explain what
advantage this ``native support'' would have? If the BIND file formats
are so wonderful, why does the BIND company keep changing them? I have a
comparison table at
showing that all sorts of operations are easier with djbdns than with
BIND. Have you actually tried using the djbdns configuration mechanism?
What specific operations did you find easier with BIND?
> plain-text config files like everyone/everything else rather than
> magic filenames inside a hard-coded directory tree
Let's try a concrete example. With djbdns, to authorize clients with IP
address 10.*, you touch /service/dnscache/root/ip/10. With BIND, you
edit named.conf and add something to the allow-query line.
The obvious point is that djbdns makes the configuration change easier
for people than BIND does.
The more subtle, and more important, point is that djbdns makes the
configuration change much easier for _programs_ than BIND does. If
someone wants to write a tool providing another configuration UI, he'll
have a much easier time with djbdns than with BIND, because the file
formats are much simpler. Everyone benefits.
---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago