To:
Ed Sawicki <ed@alcpress.com>
Cc:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
bert hubert <ahu@ds9a.nl>
Date:
Thu, 20 Feb 2003 22:14:00 +0100
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<1045767795.1155.135.camel@red>
Mail-Followup-To:
bert hubert <ahu@ds9a.nl>,Ed Sawicki <ed@alcpress.com>, dnsop@cafax.se
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.3.28i
Subject:
Re: Why one port?
On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 11:03:15AM -0800, Ed Sawicki wrote: > I'm wondering why there is only one UDP port assigned to the DNS > protocol? It prevents us from using both an iterative name > server and a recursive name server/cache on the same computer > when only one IP address is available. Well, that is partly due to the wording of 1034 and 1035 which pretty much mention 'local cache' and 'local database' in one breath. And indeed, this is a big mistake. Right now, you can't even differentiate based on the RD bit. Compare it to running Squid and Apache both on port 80. Regards, bert -- http://www.PowerDNS.com Open source, database driven DNS Software http://lartc.org Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control HOWTO http://netherlabs.nl Consulting #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.