Re: Microsoft DNS vs others

Mitchell B. Wagers ( (no email) )
Thu, 08 Jan 1998 19:29:59 -0800

We use ours with several Unix and IBM boxes to get secondary records from.
I haven't had a problem with MS DNS since I started 4 years ago and I
believe many of the headaches people see, as ALWAYS, are Operator Error,
Head Space, and Timing. Get the picture? :)
It helps so much to read those little RFC documents.

At 01:40 PM 1/8/98 -0700, you wrote:
> Just to throw in my three cents: I've used MS DNS about two years. I had
>occasional trouble with it initially -- especially after Internic root DNS
>burps. It would apparently forget the addresses of the root servers (or
>just ignore them) and return "no record" errors on looking up sites that
>weren't cached or that had expired in cache. This would continue long after
>the root DNS problems had been resolved.
> Upon recommendation from someone in this list (who deserves many thanks
>although I can't recall his name) - I created a local primary zone called
> & inserted the names & addresses of all root servers.
>Since that time (8+ months ago?) I've had not a problem nor fault...
>Performance is great, even under load, even using an old Cyrix166 box to run
>the thing... It doesn't seem to have any problems talking to the Unix
>machine acting as secondary.
> All I can say 'bout the MS DNS is that I've currently got no complaints.
>Read into that what you will.
>p.s. Someone recommended grabbing a copy of O'Reilley's "DNS and BIND" -- I
>second that motion. It doesn't matter if you're using a GUI DNS or some
>Unix port, ya still need to understand the fundamentals, otherwise it's all
>in vain.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> NTISP Mailing List