-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 20 November 2002 20:43, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> 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.
I found it easier to define a ACL and use that acl-name for configuration
purposes. It's more "human readable" then numbers that i have to search in
subdirectories.
And defining access/ACL for CIDR networks IS easier with BIND.
Running DNS on different IPs (or restrict the use of them) on the same
systems is much easier(!) to setup with BIND.
Can djbdns run recursion and authoritive server on same IP ?
> The obvious point is that djbdns makes the configuration change easier
> for people than BIND does.
I found it easier to have one configuration file (and includes for zone
configuration files). Makes checking and managing easier - for me.
...
> have a much easier time with djbdns than with BIND, because the file
> formats are much simpler. Everyone benefits.
I've heard similar things when they introduced Sony BETA. :-)
and PS: i am running dnscache on my workstation. It works - fast and doesn't
burn too much memory. Too bad there aren't any official debian packages out
there, but that's another story.
- --
"We should not be trying to use technical solutions
to solve a social problem."
[Thomas R. Stephenson ("about SPAM" - Pegasus list 16.12.1999)]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD4DBQE93AMgEyTmlrVpUvwRAgcyAJ4r7c/+/wqfyR85IbqN24EcUOos7ACXXrFr
lb8zTfxlIlKZR8KIG6L6BA==
=ZifK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
