4 ms·
I think it's good that there's a standard for zone files. I've migrated from one dns server to another and being able to just carry over the same zone files has
by kiwijamo 4y ago
I think it's good that there's a standard for zone files. I've migrated from one dns server to another and being able to just carry over the same zone files has been useful. I also for some time had a master using one dns software and slaves using different software (as part of a mirgariton keeping a known good server using the old software and moving others to the new software and testing to ensure both were producing the same responses). Had zone transfers not been standardised I would not have been able to do this. I agree that perhaps the easy path of just adoptong the BIND implementation should not have happened but I would argue having a standard is better than just leaving it to hoping the implementation detail remains compatible between different software.
- tptacek 4y agoIt's absolutely useful to have a standard form for DNS zone files; it just shouldn't be a part of the DNS standard. There's no scarcity of RFC numbers, and zone files should be a separate, optional RFC. (They're practically obsolete now, so there isn't much uncertainty about who had the better side of this argument.)
- AndyMcConachie 4y agoNot sure what you mean by obsolete. https://www.internic.net/domain/root.zone https://www.internic.net/domain/root.zone I agree that they are optional, but I wouldn't go so far to say they're obsolete.
- tptacek 4y agoAnybody building a new DNS server at this point is going to back it with a database, not a bunch of text files.
- stevenjgarner 4y agoPowerDNS [1] has been doing that under the GPL since 2002, featuring a large number of different backends ranging from simple BIND style zonefiles to relational databases and load balancing/failover algorithms. [1] https://www.powerdns.com/ https://www.powerdns.com/