Speed of BIND vs. W2k DNS

[David R. Conrad]

Tim,

At 12:09 AM 12/24/2000 -0800, Tim Maestas wrote:
>I think it's a shame
>         that the authors of BIND have to relax it's conformance
>         to the specs to solve what is essentially someone elses
>         broken implementation.

To be fair, the extra bytes were a flag to the MS servers that the server 
was able to handle an RFC-compliant optimization.  In some versions of 
BIND, if you tried that optimization, BIND would crash.  This is not the 
case in current versions of BIND and the trailing two bytes can't cause any 
harm if we just ignore them ("be liberal in what you accept, conservative 
in what you send" and all that).  As it turns out, there are a lot of other 
nameservers out there that send much less justifiable crap.  At least MS 
had a reason...

Rgds,
-drc