At 11 Oct 2011 13:57:38 +0100, Chris Thompson <c...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> Maybe an off topic in this thread, but out of curiosity, is there any > >> specific reason you don't use the database as the direct source of the > >> zone with BIND 9's dlz or PowerDNS? In general it will be slower, and > > > >I can't speak for Chris but here, we rejected DLZ and similar because: > > > > 1. DNSSEC > > 2. Speed > > 3. Impedance mismatch between database schema and DNS > > 4. Perceived second-class status of DLZ > > 5. Loss of various things that are automatic if using zones (IXFR) > > 6. Too-tight coupling between the SQL DB and DNS [...] > I have kept an eye on DLZ developments over the years, and thought quite > seriously about using it for the re-implementation of the hidden master > for our "managed zone service" (for vanity domains, although that's not > how we describe them to the punters), but even there it didn't work out, > primarily for Phil's reasons #5 and #6. I see, thanks. I think #6 is the most critical reason - other things can be solved via development/release engineering improvements, but this one seems to be about the system design policy, which wouldn't (easily) be changed due to a feature set or the quality of implementation. Since there appears to be a class of operators who prefer the "coupling" of DNS server and the database (from the fact that there are a non negligible number of users of DLZ and PowerDNS(+ database backend), this is probably a matter of operational philosophy. --- JINMEI, Tatuya Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
