MultiBind Testers Wanted
American Webmasters is completing modifications to Bind 9.1.1 in a new version called MultiBind. MultiBind solves the problem of multiple root networks on the internet by allowing the specification of more than one root.cache file. Cache files are processed in order of sysadmin-specified preference. When looking for a TLD, MultiBind searches each of the RSNs until a match is found. MultiBind will also allow the sysadmin to specify RSN-TLD preferences so that control is not just at the root server level. We are looking for testers - anyone who would like the code, please respond here. The beta release will be ready on May 1, 2001 http://www.nic.lion
for the record...
American Webmasters is completing modifications to Bind 9.1.1 in a new = version called MultiBind. MultiBind solves the problem of multiple root = networks on the internet by allowing the specification of more than one = root.cache file.
Cache files are processed in order of sysadmin-specified preference. = When looking for a TLD, MultiBind searches each of the RSNs until a = match is found.
MultiBind will also allow the sysadmin to specify RSN-TLD preferences so = that control is not just at the root server level.
We are looking for testers - anyone who would like the code, please = respond here. The beta release will be ready on May 1, 2001
The source code for BIND is available under a BSD-style license, which means the owner and copyright holder (ISC - Internet Software Consortium, Inc.) permits full redistribution, in source or binary, modified or not. However, the product name is protected. "MultiBind" may be an infringement of ISC's rights to the BIND product name. In any case, this derivative of ISC's work is not sanctioned or approved by ISC in any way, and in fact ISC's long-held position is that any proposal involving "multiple root networks" is nothing short of domain piracy and also violates the DNS protocol. In addition, the possibly infringing product "MultiBind" from American Webmasters directly contravenes the IETF IAB's position as laid out in RFC 2826(*1). ISC *strongly* recommends that the comments in RFC 2826 be heeded by the Internet community, and that the extensions described above for the infringing product "MultiBind" *not* be used by anyone connected to the Internet(*2). (*1) See ftp://ftp.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2826.txt. (*2) Q: But what IS the Internet? A: "It's the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitive, symmetric, closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet from'". Seth Breidbart
[ On Tuesday, April 10, 2001 at 14:33:35 (-0700), Paul A Vixie wrote: ]
Subject: Re: MultiBind Testers Wanted
However, the product name is protected. "MultiBind" may be an infringement of ISC's rights to the BIND product name. In any case, this derivative of ISC's work is not sanctioned or approved by ISC in any way, and in fact ISC's long-held position is that any proposal involving "multiple root networks" is nothing short of domain piracy and also violates the DNS protocol.
Now I know you (ISC) guys are nuts. "BIND" is, literally, the "Berkeley Internet Name Domain" server. If ISC's claiming rights to that basic acronym that was invented and existed long before ISC or even Paul Vixie's involvement with BIND then I'm going to have to go somewhere and get violently sick now.... If anyone other than UCB owns the name it's either Kevin Dunlap or Mike Karels. Certainly one of the latter is likely to be able to claim to be its creator. (note that of course "ISC BIND" is an entirely different critter) -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <gwoods@acm.org> <woods@robohack.ca> Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 08:34:33PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
Now I know you (ISC) guys are nuts. "BIND" is, literally, the "Berkeley Internet Name Domain" server. If ISC's claiming rights to that basic acronym that was invented and existed long before ISC or even Paul Vixie's involvement with BIND then I'm going to have to go somewhere and get violently sick now.... If anyone other than UCB owns the name it's either Kevin Dunlap or Mike Karels. Certainly one of the latter is likely to be able to claim to be its creator.
Since Bindview and PC/BIND are both registered trademarks, and not registered to the ISC, they're doubly nuts.
On Apr 10, 2001 at 02:33:35PM -0700, Paul A Vixie wrote:
On Apr 05, 2001 at 16:23:26 PDT, John Palmer wrote:
American Webmasters is completing modifications to Bind 9.1.1 in a new = version called MultiBind. MultiBind solves the problem of multiple root = networks on the internet by allowing the specification of more than one = root.cache file.
Maybe I'm an idiot, but I'm failing to see the need for this for a DNS administrator with 0.5 clues (hint: host your own root zone, and delegate wherever you please). I wasn't even going to respond to his original post until you said:
However, the product name is protected. "MultiBind" may be an infringement of ISC's rights to the BIND product name.
*sigh* Shall we draw the comparisons to Tatu Ylonen now, or after you've officially drawn the legal line in the sand with "American Webmasters"? (Assuming, of course, that you haven't already.) This being an operational list, wouldn't it have been possible to avoid the veiled legal threats and stuck to an *operational* reason why we should avoid their patches? After all, their choice of name doesn't affect our ability to use the patches, only your company's ability to market the name "BIND". "Not our problem." (The easy operation reason for not using the patches being, of course, that they're completely unnecessary, and will likely introduce lookup delays that the administrator probably isn't expecting from that press-release-ish announcement they originally sent out.)
ISC's long-held position is that any proposal involving "multiple root networks" is nothing short of domain piracy and also violates the DNS protocol. [...] In addition, the possibly infringing product "MultiBind" from American Webmasters directly contravenes the IETF IAB's position as laid out in RFC 2826(*1).
*sigh^2* I can't wait for this argument to start up again. -- Edward S. Marshall <esm@logic.net> http://www.nyx.net/~emarshal/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. ]
Once upon a time, Paul A Vixie <vixie@mfnx.net> said:
However, the product name is protected. "MultiBind" may be an infringement of ISC's rights to the BIND product name. In any case, this derivative of ISC's work is not sanctioned or approved by ISC in any way, and in fact ISC's long-held position is that any proposal involving "multiple root networks" is nothing short of domain piracy and also violates the DNS protocol.
Would you care to elaborate on the "protection" the ISC has on the "product name" (I assume you mean "BIND")? I just looked at my 8.2.2 and 8.2.3 sources and I don't see anything beyond the license. I also don't see any mention of such protection on the ISC web site (without digging into it anyway). I can't even find the license on the web site. -- Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
participants (6)
-
Chris Adams -
Edward S. Marshall -
John Palmer (NANOG Acct) -
Paul A Vixie -
Shawn McMahon -
woods＠weird.com