Slashdot Mirror
BIND 10 Development Now Fully Underway
darthcamaro writes "A decade after work first began on version 9 of BIND, the widely deployed open source DNS server, work is now fully underway on its successor, BIND 10. '"One of the goals for BIND 10 is to allow people to customize and extend without too much trouble," Shane Kerr, BIND 10's program manager at the Internet Systems Consortium (ISC), told InternetNews.com.' Sounds good right? Only problem is that it's going to take a bit of time until BIND 10 is actually ready for production — potentially as long as five years!"
I sure hope the bugs aren't backwards compatable
Here's the entire code for Bind 1:
grep $name /etc/hosts
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
Why the emphasis on how long it will take? I've had pieces of shit that took longer than that to get ready for "production".
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
What happened to the god of BIND and DNS?
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Please, Please Please fix the Bind LDAP SDB Backend to allow LDAP Integrated Zones to Dynamic update. LDAP zones are useless right now because DHCP can't update it!
because after BIND 10 is done all the distributors must package it for their specific customers. This includes appliance vendors that utilize BIND. Speaking of appliance vendors, the article mentions that DNSSEC could eventually be enabled by possibly clicking a single button in an interface but that will be dependent on the interfaces put on top of BIND. I guess if BIND 10 has its own interface then that could work well but appliance vendors put their own GUI on top of their implementations of BIND and it may not always be as simple as a single button click.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Please try not to leave behind useful features. Yes, misfeatures should be abandoned. Sometimes mere obsolescence can move a feature into the misfeature column. However, merely uncommon or obscure != "mis". It requires a pragmatic grownup to detect the difference.
The feature set begins with BIND 9. Too many major revisions of fundamental systems fail to achieve feature parity and long after the "new" is production solid the user base remains stratified into the (neglected) old and the (indifferent) new.
You must know that after the (entirely reasonable) half decade is spent to produce 10 it will take years to migrate the majority of the user base. The justifiably conservative nature of the BIND user base is such that dropped functionality will retard adoption dramatically. Better to provide parity with BIND 9's feature set and remove one excuse to sit on 9 till 2020.
Put it on the list of goals, near the top; "Feature Parity with BIND 9". Make it clear that the user base can take this for granted; if BIND 9 can do it, BIND 10 can do it.
I think you'll find if not a lot more support, at least less resistance. I know you will cut the migration period dramatically.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
By the way, SMTP and IMAP folks, you're way ahead of the game. Your stuff is already reached the point of sublime unusability past which no fully compliant implementation is possible. Well done!
-- "Most people prefer a popular myth to an unpopular truth"
from the great Ahusan.
So they finally figured out that djb was right; it took them mere 10 years. If he only didn't have such a... personality. Maybe we would've had something sane by now.
Here's the entire code for Bind 10:
wget http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.tar.gz
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Please disable ipv6 mapped ipv4 AAAA records. Thank you.
You jest, but this one line program is incredibly buggy!
Bind 10 was written in Perl 6!
bp
If the schedule slips the could call it BIND Forever.
Were talkin a name server here, Most major OS rewrites have been done in less time.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Hi,
my personal opinion is, that BIND 9 already lived too long and BIND 10 started much too late. If you have to operate huge installations (>250.000 Zones), BIND 9 is close to unuseable.
Example: Starting BIND 9 with 350.000 Zones already consumes the complete service window (2 hours) we have for works concerning the hardware. You can't even shave off much time by having all zone files on a ram disk (about 10% less time). BIND 9.6 utilizes a single core for 2 hours just to parse and load the information. For comparison a different (comercial) product imports the (same) complete configuration in about 90s (from disk, BIND 9 format) and takes about 4s for start afterwards. I know there are workarounds for BIND, but they come with high operational costs.
BIND is (IMHO) mainly a reference implementation. It has to implement everything in one single product and suffers the usual penalties for it. I still use BIND 9 myself for several purposes since it has a some advantages too (mainly, that it is OSS).
Sincerely yours, Martin
P.S. If there is any interest, i can post some benchmarks and scripts which i used to run them....
DISCLAIMER: I'm working for a company that is selling DNS products. So i'm not to be considered a neutral party :-). But since i'm doing this for 15 years now, i consider myself at least an experienced biased party.....
finally in 10 years we will be able to write our ip's in rr-zones from left to right.
less headache, more usability - yay
I tried to install it, but it responded to every query with "Bind 4 is buggy. Use my code instead!", "Zone transfers should be done with rsync!" or "Worship me, mortal!".
I tried to read the man page to see how to fix that, but was greeted with nothing more than a lengthy rant about how the man system was outdated and needed to be replaced with something painfully convoluted which violated at least sixteen different Internet standards, five state laws and no less than two commandments.
I went to the author's web site for more information but found only a condescending diatribe about how web browsers were bloated and shouldn't be used for anything important. Eventually my interest in testing that new product faded away only to be replaced by the slightly sickened feeling that comes from sitting up all night watching informercials so I just gave up.
I do hope that future releases can address these rather obvious and simple problems as I suspect that there is some useful code buried in there somewhere.
BIND always has been buggy, and full of security issues as well. I've been running djbdns for years, and while the install is definitely not straightforward, I went with it mostly because BIND was even less straightforward to install.
Two months ago, the first ever security vulnerability was found in djbdns -- an extremely minor one that barely affects any servers, yet it was the first ever, in the entire history of djbdns. This speaks extremely well of the design of the set of tools that make up the djbdns system.
Really, with almost a decade of essentially flawless operation behind djbdns, and millions of domains being served by it, I have to question why BIND is relevant moving forward.
Haven't these guys heard of Agile?