Paul Johnson wrote: > Am I the only one who doesn't find bind9 to be that difficult to use? No. I find bind 4, 8, 9 have all been pretty simple myself. Not sure what the problems people have with it. It just works. But I think people find DNS in general confusing. It is an extremely distributed database system. There are both global and local domain roots. There are both recursive and iterative queries. It uses both UDP and TCP. Zone updates can be either full or incremental. It is used across firewalls in isolated network bubbles. Data is cached for a TTL time until it expires. To break update loops zones are updated based upon a serial number only and not the content of the zone. I am sure many of you reading this are nodding your head along with me here. What does any of that have to do with named in bind? It really does not. BIND is only the messenger here. People go to set up DNS, start using bind because it is the standard, are confused by DNS and transfer that confusion to bind. I think it is a problem of transference and not a problem with bind. Bob
Attachment:
pgpNRLqq43Vhw.pgp
Description: PGP signature