Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:06:14 +0100 From: Benjamin Walkenhorst <krylon@gmx.net> To: Danny MacMillan <flowers@users.sourceforge.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Caching DNS Server? Message-ID: <41911526.1000709@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <20041109174553.GA807@procyon.nekulturny.org> References: <00e101c4c67d$19b32900$19c8a8c0@loriandsmith> <20041109174553.GA807@procyon.nekulturny.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Danny MacMillan wrote: >No doubt BIND can do this ... but I find djbdns much easier to configure. > > I have never tried out djbdns, so I cannot say for myself, and I also understand that apparently djbdns has caused similarly intense discussions as KDE-vs-GNOME or vi-vs-emacs; so I want to make clear that I am not ranting about djbdns. But I don't really find BIND hard to configure as a caching nameserver. I run BIND on my NetBSD machine doing exactly that, and the caching part took no modification to the default configuration to work. On the other hand, like I said, I haven't worked with djbdns so far - from what I know it seems to be worth trying. I'm just a lazy person, so I never bothered trying when I had BIND installed already. =) And since I've been working on a BIND4-to-BIND9-migration for the recent months I got kind of used to it. Still, I really like the idea of having seperate servers for resolving recursive queries and for hosting zones, since this affects both security and performance. Nominum, the company that wrote BIND9, offers a commercial, closed-source nameserver as well, that also uses different servers for caching and hosting authoritative zon data. Then again, performance shouldn't differ for home use. Kind regards, Benjamin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41911526.1000709>