In message <4cbc3a5f.6020...@knipp.de>, Klaus Malorny writes: > On 18/10/10 01:16, Doug Barton wrote: > > On 10/16/2010 4:58 AM, Klaus Malorny wrote: > >> [...] > > > > It's virtually certain that you would get better results with less effort b > y > > switching to using dynamic updates. > > > > > > hth, > > > > Doug > > > > Hi Doug, > > well, I considered this, but as far as I understand, there are some non-trivi > al > problems with RFC 2136: > > - can't create or drop zones -> still need to use the classic approach > > - updates limited to a single message (64k limit via TCP), requiring > the updates to be split if need be -> problems regarding atomicity, > query integrity during update, serial numbers
A 64K update is a really, really large update. The unsigned root zone fits into 64K. I know automated systems can generate really large updates but in reality almost all of those can be split up safely especially it the automated system is generating the update incrementally. > also, this is only considered as an interim solution until Bind10 becomes > suitable for our needs. > > Regards, > > Klaus > _______________________________________________ > bind-users mailing list > bind-users@lists.isc.org > https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
