Boston Linux & Unix (BLU) Home | Calendar | Mail Lists | List Archives | Desktop SIG | Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings
Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Blog | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU

BLU Discuss list archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Dec 5, 2010, at 10:03 PM, Tom Metro wrote:
> I don't think that's correct. It subverts the intent of DNS being a
> distributed database.

A distributed database is a single database with storage replicated across many discrete storage systems.  GIT is a distributed database.  A GIT replica contains the entire set of data (source code).  DNS is not a distributed database.  DNS is an hierarchical naming system built on top of many, many distributed databases.  Phrased another way, BIND is a distributed database engine and DNS is an application built on top of that engine.

> If it were true that it was hard to find a public recursive server that
> was fast, reliable, and didn't monkey with the records, then running
> your own recursive resolver would make sense. But that's not the case.

And is immune to cache poisoning.  Most public servers -- particularly ISPs and Google -- run caching name servers.  Authoritative servers like the root name servers are usually non-caching, thus cannot be poisoned, thus ensuring that you always get the correct records for your queries.

--Rich P.

BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!

Boston Linux & Unix /