RE: djbdns: An alternative to BIND

[<andrew2 () one net>]

owner-nanog () merit edu wrote:
> > however, since BIND9 is compatible with BIND8 and BIND4, and with
> > microsoft's DNS, and with virtually every other DNS in the world
> > except for "tinydns",
>
> Err, "compatible" because it detects them and then does the
> right thing, and uses the traditional protocol.

You know...I'm reminded of something we're all familiar with that came
up, oh...lets say 8 years ago.  There were some new-fangled devices out
there that were capable of communicating over POTS at somewhere close to
56 kbps.  It seems to me there were two flavors of them, K-Flex and X2.
You might have heard of them.  Anyway, if your modem had K-Flex firmware
and was trying to connect to something using X2, you couldn't connect
anywhere near 56 kbps.  And vice-versa.  The two technologies were
incompatible.  And yet, once they detected the incompatability, they
were able to renegotiate down to a protocol they had in common, say
v.32.  Now eventually we came out with the v.90 standard so that
everyone could play together nicely.  Point is, even before there *was*
a 56k standard, all those "incompatible" modems could still communicate,
just not using their new proprietary protocols.  So, I guess I'm
wondering....how is what BIND9 does substantially different than the
case I've outlined above?

Andrew