[dns-operations] [Ext] How should work name resolution on a modern system?
paul at redbarn.org
Thu Jun 16 18:25:48 UTC 2022
David Conrad wrote on 2022-06-16 08:26:
> ... What ISC defined as “views" in BIND 9 is simply an implementation of an
independent namespace. The fact that it is (now) most frequently used in
the context of an independent address space is irrelevant.
when considering BIND9, bob halley and i knew of many BIND4 and BIND8
installations who ran a different name server instance for each IP
interface address, in order that different audiences would receive
different results. this seemed to us like the long way around, and we
wanted BIND9 to handle this situation natively.
while RFC 1597 (later reissued as RFC 1918) was widely practiced at the
time BIND9 was designed, it's true as david recounts above that the
primary use case we had for "views" was enterprise-internal naming
systems. (when i did some consulting for sony electronics, we had to
keep 43/8 addresses from leaking to the outside world.)
see also <http://family.redbarn.org/~vixie/proxynet.pdf>.
More information about the dns-operations