On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 06:28:27AM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
NM shouldn't really care what the caching nameserver
implementation is,
anything is fine. It just happens that the current bits talked to named
because patches for dnsmasq didn't materialize out of thin air. Plus
I'd like to rethink how NM interacts with nameservers (ideally, NM waits
for pulls, not pushes stuff out).
No, it should stay a push. DNS configuration changes happen way less
often than DNS lookups, so the communication should be done on changes
(after an initial pull of course, which should include a "hi, I'm
here, talk to me").
OG.