BIND 8.2.3 verus 9.x.x ?? in production

[Jim Reid]

>>>>> "Brad" == Brad Knowles <brad.knowles at skynet.be> writes:

    >> I agree with Kevin, but it has more to do with the 41,000
    >> queries one of my servers took in 40 seconds last weekend than
    >> anything.  :-)

Broken desktops can be a real problem, eh? :-)

    Brad> 	Ahh, but that's only a thousand queries a second.  I
    Brad> had machines back in 1996 that could do that many.  ;-)

Query rates of 1000+ per second are well up towards root name server
levels. They shouldn't be seen in regular, well-behaved environments -
even at huge ISPs.

    >> I also think calling it BIND 9 is a misnomer.  It's NIND
    >> 1.1.1rc5, not BIND 9.1.1rc5.  (NIND = Nominum Internet Name
    >> Daemon -- Berkeley's not really all that involved anymore, are
    >> they?)

    Brad> 	No, this is not at all correct.  BIND is an ISC
    Brad> product, and Nominum's involvement is as the company that
    Brad> has been contracted to write the code.  Therefore, this is
    Brad> very much still BINDv9, since this is still an ISC project.

Indeed. That's why all the BIND9 code has the ISC copyright: it's the
ISC's intellectual property, not Nominum's. Anything we do that we own
carries a Nominum copyright.

However the original poster is strictly correct to say the code
shouldn't be called BIND any more. But it should have been renamed 5-6
years ago. UC Berkeley's direct involvement with BIND stopped around
the time the CSRG wound up in 1995. I think that Vixie Enterprises had
taken over the maintenance of BIND by that time: maybe sooner or a
little later. Shortly after that the ISC was born and "ownership" of
BIND was transferred to that not-for-profit institution. The code
retained UCB's copyright - a good model for open source IMHO - and
then inherited a bunch of other open source copyrights as a cast of
thousands contributed code.