Subject: Re: latest Internet Domain Survey

From: Lars-Johan Liman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:12:20 +0100 (MET)

Hmm.

I found the following message stuck in an automatic list
filter. Majordummy tries to be smart about "unsubscribes", which
caught this innocent formulation.

Apologies, David.

				/Liman

Subject: Re: latest Internet Domain Survey
From: "David R. Conrad" <[email-masked]>
To: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:49:10 -0800

> replace BIND (which is too unstable for a big survey) with dnscache

Gosh, I'll have to tell Mark that every survey he's done since '91 can't be
done since the nameserver he uses is too unstable.

Rgds,
-drc

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 24 Feb 2000 18:50:42 -0000

> done since the nameserver he uses is too unstable.

My surveying software kills BIND. Every time.

This isn't news; we both know that the BIND cache dies under heavy load.
Anyone on the net can trivially take down your cache by tunneling a
bunch of DNS queries through your SMTP server, your web browser, etc.,
even if you restrict the IP addresses of queries.

Perhaps Mark's surveying software contacts the servers directly. My
software relies on a working cache. When I tell someone how to carry out
a big survey with my software, I'm not going to omit the essential step
of installing a cache that can handle the load.

---Dan

---

From: "David R. Conrad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:12:58 -0800

> My surveying software kills BIND. Every time.

Thanks for the bug report -- in the future, you may get faster response if
submit bug reports to [email-masked].  If you'd be so kind as to provide a
copy of or pointer to the software you use to "kill BIND "(to bind-bugs, of
course), it may help us fix whatever problem you are experiencing.
 
> When I tell someone how to carry out

I'm glad.  Of course, I'm not sure it is particularly useful if there are many
people all running "big" surveys.

Rgds,
-drc

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:58:36 -0800

> My surveying software kills BIND.

what's amusing is that you seem to be proud of it

randy

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Feb 2000 05:12:14 -0000

David R. Conrad writes:
> Of course, I'm not sure it is particularly useful if there are many

Of course, it's hardly a surprise that you'd say that, since you're
charging thousands of dollars for each copy of your survey output.

> you may get faster response if submit bug reports to [email-masked].

What good would that do? People have been complaining for years about
BIND's fragility. Your latest so-called ``production'' release dies
under heavy load, just like the first version of BIND did.

I'd rather give people a solution that works.

---Dan

---

From: Jerry Scharf <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 22:04:41 -0800

> under heavy load, just like the first version of BIND did.

I guess those root nameservers running thousands of queries per second against 
gigabyte zones must not be considered "heavy load."

Let's end this rathole on the IETF lists!

---

From: "David R. Conrad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 22:44:30 -0800

Dan,

> charging thousands of dollars for each copy of your survey output.

Of course.  How else can we afford the upkeep on our black helicopters?  If
you have a problem with the way ISC tries to fund the services it provides
free of charge, you might bring it up with the ISC board of directors.  This
mailing list is likely not an appropriate forum.

If it is unclear to you why having lots of people running global DNS surveys
isn't the best idea, perhaps you should think about it a bit more.

> What good would that do? 

It would do something constructive, but I gather that's not something you're
interested in.

> People have been complaining for years about
> BIND's fragility. 

That's the "fun" part of trying to support a package that's been around (and
accreted) for years, everyone gets to poke around at it and find all its
deficiencies.  Of course, when a deficiency is reported to [email-masked],
we try (with what limited resources we have) to fix the problem.  However, I
personally have not been hearing complaints of BIND's "fragility" -- I've
mostly been hearing requests for the integration of new features into BIND.

> Your latest so-called ``production'' release dies

Undoubtedly.  It is difficult for me to defend BIND version 8 as it's many
difficiencies are well known, perhaps a result of the fact that it is the
nameserver for the vast majority of Internet sites.  However, because it is
the nameserver for the vast majority of Internet sites, ISC tries, with its
limited resources, to continue to maintain and support it at the same time
we're developing BINDv8's replacement, BINDv9.  As I'm sure you've found out
since you've downloaded v9, it is a complete rewrite without the many v8
idiosyncracies that we all know and ... well, know.

> I'd rather give people a solution that works.

Too bad you seem to wrap so much of your ego up with your "solutions".

As this appears to be drifting a bit from the charter of this mailing list and
I have many things to do other than get in a pissing contest with you, this
will be my final response.  Feel free to have the last word -- I won't see it.

Bye now.

Rgds,
-drc

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Feb 2000 08:28:26 -0000

Vixie's associates used this list to advertise their survey, which
they're also trying to exploit commercially.

I responded by explaining how to carry out a survey for free. Replacing
BIND is an essential step in this process; users who skip this step but
follow the other instructions will end up killing BIND.

Evidently Vixie's associates don't like hearing this, even though
they're perfectly aware that it's true. And so we've all been treated to
three messages suggesting, falsely, that BIND works fine under load.

Jerry Scharf writes:
> those root nameservers running thousands of queries per second

Irrelevant. I said ``the BIND _cache_ dies under heavy load'' (emphasis
added). Serving local data is trivial.

---Dan

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 07:45:49 -0800

> added). Serving local data is trivial.

excerpted from the namedroppers mailing list aup

there is a mailing list for discussion of whose implementation is better,
and why someone else's is broken.  it is [email-masked].  all
discussions of such nature should occur there or on /dev/null.  unlike the
namedroppers list, [email-masked] is not archived.