Users Want *Seamless* Solutions, Not Patchwork (was Re: Users want solutions, not buzzwords)

[D. J. Bernstein]

Kevin Darcy writes:
> If example.com is set up as a "type forward" in BIND, then
> in the absence of an explicit zone configuration for foo.example.com,
> that name will be forwarded as well, to the same set of forwarders,
> *even*if*foo.example.com*is*delegated*to*other*servers*.

Right. That's exactly the problem. BIND supports recursive forwarding
(i.e., forwarding to caches); it doesn't support iterative forwarding
(i.e., forwarding to servers).

The difference is obvious when the forwarding target returns a referral.
BIND simply chokes. The only workaround is to manually forward the child
zone, exactly as shown in http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/blurb/easeofuse.html.

In contrast, djbdns supports iterative forwarding, so it handles this
situation automatically. djbdns _also_ supports recursive forwarding;
your ``worst-case scenarios'' rhetoric ignores this fact.

> Do you admit that duplicating the same code in both dnscache and
> axfrdns is wasteful, albeit *minimally* wasteful?

No. The code is reused for good reasons. There are two copies of the
compiled code on disk, but you would have to be a fool to worry about
this; there are much larger consumers of your resources. ``Premature
optimization is the root of all evil.''

---Dan