Bypassing DNS?

[Paul Lussier]

"Ben Scott" <dragonhawk at gmail.com> writes:

> On 2/23/06, Paul Lussier <p.lussier at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>  If you want more immediate response, I would suggest running a
>>> local instance of BIND as a caching server.
>>
>> Probably not.  This is for an embedded system, for which the desire is
>> a little complexity as possible.  Configuring a caching name server
>> would a significant layer of complexity for which our support people
>> are not qualified to deal with.
>
>   You really think so?  A caching-only nameserver requires no
> configuration with BIND, about all you have to do is install it.  You
> might want to pre-configure a restriction that it only listens to the
> localhost, but that config file would be the same everywhere.  Even if
> you wanted to configure forwarders, you could do that with a simple
> included file.  What's the big deal?
>
>   If you're worried about footprint, DJB's "tinydns" caching-only
> resolver is, well, pretty tiny.

What I'm concerned about is the number of packages listed dependencies
for the package which will have to be dragged in, the addition of
config files, the amount of additional testing required for adding
this package and it's config files, etc.  This isn't just a matter of
"adding a single package" and "tweaking a file" once.  This is about
drastically changing the makeup of a whole product and the manpower
behind delivering said product.  I'm not saying it's not the right
choice, just that a) it's a lot more than "just doing it" b) it's not
necessarilly my call, c) people with less technical understanding than
engineers are the ones requiring justification and who ultimately
control the expenditure of the required resources (i.e. my or other's
time).
-- 

Seeya,
Paul