Re: NSD vs BIND

2012-08-26 Thread Martin Pelikan
2012/8/22, Gabriel Kihlman : > Chris Cappuccio writes: > >> I don't think the in-tree bind supports dnssec. > > Just for the archives; it does, I am using it. It does not support NSEC3 records, which in today's world can result in bad queries (there's a hash inside of a readable domain name) and

Re: NSD vs BIND

2012-08-22 Thread Gabriel Kihlman
Chris Cappuccio writes: > I don't think the in-tree bind supports dnssec. Just for the archives; it does, I am using it. /gabriel

Re: NSD vs BIND

2012-08-22 Thread John Bond
On 22 August 2012 04:57, Mikkel Bang wrote: > Hello! > > For authoritative nameservers - which do you guys prefer, NSD or BIND? NSD requires a restart of the daemon to add or remove zones (this should be resolved in nsd 4). So if this is something you do a lot and you need to avoid down time i wo

Re: NSD vs BIND

2012-08-22 Thread David Walker
Mikkel Bang > For authoritative nameservers Disregarding other reasons, easier documentation and simpler configuration are definite wins ...

Re: NSD vs BIND

2012-08-21 Thread Chris Cappuccio
I don't think the in-tree bind supports dnssec. Bind 10 is the second or third major re-write of Paul Vixie's oriignal, designed to support it dnssec in the latest versions. nsd handles dnssec out of the box and it's in-tree. Once you get used to the config file, which is simple, it's pretty eas

NSD vs BIND

2012-08-21 Thread Mikkel Bang
Hello! For authoritative nameservers - which do you guys prefer, NSD or BIND? I've been using BIND all these years, but after Googling around, NSD seems extremely attractive. Plus it follows BIND's zonefile format so I don't really have to redesign my configs, how about that? Mikkel