Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

discuss - Re: [opennic-discuss] Alternatives to BIND?

discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org

Subject: Discuss mailing list

List archive

Re: [opennic-discuss] Alternatives to BIND?


Chronological Thread 
  • From: webmaster AT blockaid.me
  • To: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
  • Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] Alternatives to BIND?
  • Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 21:00:49 +0000
  • Importance: Normal
  • Sensitivity: Normal

We use it over at blockaid. Very robust. I've been recommending it for a while, but I always get shot down. :p

You would be using the hint method if you went with it.
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone on O2

From: "Alex M (Coyo)" <coyo AT darkdna.net>
Sender: discuss-request AT lists.opennicproject.org
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:50:22 -0500
To: <discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org>
ReplyTo: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] Alternatives to BIND?

What do you guys think about PowerDNS?

https://www.powerdns.com/recursor.html

Seems like a decent resolver.

On 04/10/2013 02:48 PM, Alex M (Coyo) wrote:
speaking of bind and the unreasonable demands for ram it really shouldn't need, does anyone here have some suggestions on alternatives to bind?

what other authoritative and resolving nameserver daemons would be suggested if one wanted to avoid using bind?

the usecase i have in mind are very large scale deployments (hundreds of thousands of users) such as that seen in large broadband carrier networks.

i'm thinking more in terms of load balanced server clusters behind a pair of static ip addresses assigned by dhcp, dual stack. the servers must support ipv6, and ideally would be amenable to load balancing.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of Page